Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Archive 2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 2005 ← Archive 2009 Archive 2010 Archive 2011

Deleted/transwikied galleries

As a result of a scant deletion discussion – which, as far as I can see, was never announced here – many galleries of flags were transwikied to Commons and deleted from the English-language Wikipedia. These galleries were navigational aids, and in my opinion their deletion was plain stupid. The deleting admin(s) have, in almost all cases, not even provided soft redirects, and so these deletions have left red links all over the place. See for example template {{Lists of flags}}, transcluded on many pages. For another example, see the red links in List of flags by design, like where it says in section Cross: Main article: Gallery of flags with crosses, making this completely useless for identifying, say, the flag of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. In the copying to Commons the wikilinks to the articles on Wikipedia were not adjusted, so now they are red links on Commons, or point to something else; see for example Commons:Flags with stars. I don't know what to do with this and have no concrete proposals, but I thought this was the appropriate spot for posting an alert.  --Lambiam 14:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

British royal labels

User:Stephen2nd/Royal Labels of the United Kingdom is about ready to move into article space. —Tamfang (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

...It's been at Royal Labels of the United Kingdom for a while now. (I think it ought to be Cadency labels of the British royal family, but who listens to me?) Anyone with mad SVG skilz, please see its talk page. —Tamfang (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Flag of micronation deletetd from Commons

I created from scratch a PNG version of the flag of Saugeais (taking inspiration from here) but they said it was copyrighted and there was no evidence that I was the copyright holder of the flag itself. How can I choose a license to upload it on Wikipedia? Thanks.--Carnby (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

A fair use license is used on copyrighted material. However, this would not apply here as fair use also requires a rationale explaining why the image could not be replaced or replicated. This image is far to simple in execution to be argued that it can not be replicated or replaced. I suggest going to Commons and using the free images there as a base for a new flag image and/or creating your own devices.
Η936631 (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
They said? Who?
If you made it from scratch, the copyright is yours. The worst someone else can do is claim trademark infringement, if you were passing off the symbol as your own. —Tamfang (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I made it from scratch and told them this but apparently it was not sufficient to keep the image there.--Carnby (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Since the image is deleted, we can not see how closely it copies the 'inspiration' you linked to. However, even if you redraw an image, if that new graphic matches exactly the old in every detail and in style, then what you created is a copy and not a new work. Copy does not refer to machine copies or computer copies alone, such as made by copy machines and printers, but also manual copies even when done by hand in pencil or ink. So while some technical skill is required to remake an image as an SVG, all you are doing is copying the graphic, just in a different format. This is not to say that a copyrighted image can not be used as a source, but simply avoid copying line by line the image in the future, and substitute free images if you must copy a detail.
Η936631 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the image I uploaded to Commons, this is another version (slightly smoothed) and this is the original FOTW pic.--Carnby (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Part of the problem, as the two versions are different enough, is that many people do not understand flags, ensigns and so forth. Upload it again, but do not link to the source image. Instead, simply make it clear this was your original representation of the flag. If you must link to the source image, do so in an article.
Η936631 (talk) 09:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the image is that the Commons tend to delete images that are derived from copyrighted works (Derivative Works). However, with the original image, we do have authorization from the original artist for his works to appear on Wikipedia and I can have the image restored. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The author of the CoA was Colonel Henri de Saint-Ferjeux in 1973. Are his works authorized to appear on Wikipedia? Could you help me to restore the pic?--Carnby (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I was more thinking about the GIF image that was on FOTW. As for his works to be authorized, the micronation website is down and I am not sure where he is located, nationality and all of that. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The author of the pic is Jaume Ollé and yes, his works seem to be authorized on Wikipedia. As far as Saugeais is concerned, it is a small territory in France.--Carnby (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

replacing coat of arms images based on subjective criteria?

Hello, How do more active contributors of this project see the replacement of images in various articles and templates based solely on the user's own taste. That is both images are heraldically correct, both are in a vector format and the only argument the user performing the replacement puts forward is that he prefers one to the other, that without seeking to achieve consensus on the article or template. In some cases leading to articles which previously used one harmonious style (for instance images from standardised sister projects on fr., de. or es.) now having images of two or more styles. If anyone is curious I'm referring to User:Adelbrecht's edit waring against a number of other contributors. See also discussion at Talk:Coat of arms of the Netherlands, on Adelbrecht's talk (various users, replies on their talk pages). Maybe we should try an certralise the discussion here?--Caranorn (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You are just trying to get me blocked, Caranorn. There was no edit warring on the coat of arms of the Netherlands. The arms were replaced because of objective reasons, smudged details of the bad SVG. You're just angry because I updated your unclear coat of arms of Namur, and after your revert, another user also supported it. You should stop acting like someone unbiased, and just admit that you prefer your style, and because of the Namur thing, you're just going to look over all my edits. I have not changed any coat of arms of the Netherlands after the discussion was opened. Quit acting like some unbiased know-it-all.Adelbrecht (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't really care all that particularly about the Namur coat of arms you mention (which by the way I only corrected/altered and am not the original author of). If I did, or thought that I owned articles and/or images I'd have reverted more than once and not have conceded once a second user supported your position. On the other hand I noticed that you were continuing to replace images even as I was attempting to communicate with you and therefore considered it unlikely that you were interested in debate and decided to seek other users' opinion. At this time I see no reason for you to be blocked, in any case I'd have no influence on such issues. Note that there indeed was edit waring between you and User:Fry1989 in that article, minor edit waring but nonetheless edit waring, likewise in a number of other articles and/or templates. But lets wait and see what others think of these issues.--Caranorn (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: I hadn't realised the replaced image had been traced from a png. I think this may raise a copyright issue in the original png, but seing as my dutch is nowhere near good enough to check the relevant legislation I'll leave that to others.--Caranorn (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Anglican dioceses

I searched en:WP and commons yesterday for images of the coats of arms of the dioceses of Truro and Lichfield and did not find any. Would it be possible to import images for the coats of arms of Anglican dioceses in England so they can be included in the articles?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Check the copyrights of any images before uploading them, but if you do not know the copyright status, do not upload them. Instead, create new images. This does not mean trace the old, but draw new ones unique to the old, or use free images from Commons to create a clip-art type graphic for now.
Η936631 (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for advice. However Commons did not have what I was looking for and I do not know how to create image files.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Since such images can be recreated rather easily by Wikipedia artists, fair use is a lot of work for what is all required, and may not really be applicable here. There is a request board for images, I will try to find it and post the requests. Could you supply links to the correct arms of each diocese? I do see a coat on the Lichfield website here, is this the correct one for this diocese?
Η936631 (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, the Lichfield arms are correct. I have been unable to find the Truro arms illustrated on the Web, however there is a description at Diocese of Truro#Coat of arms which may provide enough detail. It is a pity the diocese of Truro do not have it on their website.Felix Folio Secundus 13:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Socialist heraldry and the emblem of Italy

I wonder if anyone would like to give their opinion on this topic?

Talk:Socialist_heraldry#Emblem_of_Italy

-- Nidator T / C 20:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons discussion: "Or" or "or"?

There is a discussion on the Commons at the moment over the lack of consistency in category naming. The choice is whether to name around 32 categories from (eg) Category:Argent and Or in heraldry to Category:Argent and or in heraldry or whether to name about 110 categories from (eg) Category:Azure a bend or to Category:Azure a bend Or.

There seem to be very few native English speakers involved in the discussion thusfar, so anyone who feels strongly on the subject should probably engage in the thread: Commons CFD: Category:Or (heraldry). — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

non-armigerous Minnesota

In Seal of Minnesota, one editor has twice removed the field label "armiger" from Template:Infobox coat of arms (leaving the content of the field), saying that the State cannot be an armiger because the Seal is not a coat of arms. Be that as it may, we can't have a field without a label. Perhaps he'd be appeased by substitution of another Template. —Tamfang (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Greater Coat of Arms of the Russian Empire 1882-1917 (mass replacement)

Copied from Talk:Heraldry. —Tamfang (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

On these two pages, published a letter from the Chief Heraldry Master of Russia. It is dated 2006. http://www.rus-deco.com/vp/JS-Lib/CustomerSites/Common/view_larger.htm?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rus-deco.com%2F510_500_csupload_20087015.jpg%3Fu%3D553230982

http://www.rus-deco.com/vp/JS-Lib/CustomerSites/Common/view_larger.htm?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rus-deco.com%2F514_500_csupload_20087025.jpg%3Fu%3D3016084680

At the present moment is initiated his replacement to this picture without a single mistake and the author's portrayal: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_Empire_1700x1767_pix_Igor_Barbe_2006.jpg Earlier, the authors insisted on the presence of yellow in the figure dies with his name. For VIKI author has made an exception. However, the file with a yellow bg can remain - it has more resolution. References to it are optional for connoisseurs. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_coat_of_arms_of_the_Russian_empire_IGOR_BARBE_1500x1650jpg.jpg All files are located here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Greater_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_Empire

THNKS!

Barbe Igor (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Should a CoA in proper terminology consist of the bare escutcheon or of the full achievement?

I have a question about proper and consistent terminology. The background is some questions on svwp (the Swedish wikipedia), where a discreptance between the description of the full coat of arms and an image of only the shield lead to questioning the factuality. I checked a few items in the Category:British Overseas Territories coats of arms, and found the situation fairly confusing.

In some cases, the article describes both a shield and accessories, but the picture only shows the shield. In such cases, the picture sometimes has the label "Coat of arms (of ...)", and sometimes the label "Shield of the coat of arms (of...)", or no label. An example of the former is Coat of arms of the Turks and Caicos Islands, while Coat of arms of Saint Helena examplifies the latter. Sometimes, the description only includes a shield, as in Coat of arms of Montserrat; I do not know if this means that the blazonry does not contain any accessories. Sometimes, both description and picture include accessories (as in Coat of arms of the British Antarctic Territory, Coat of arms of the British Indian Ocean Territory, and many others). In these cases, the full achievement is called the coat of arms.

The confusion extends to the usage of the CoA's in other articles. Thus, the same image that is named "Shield of coat of arms" in Coat of arms of Saint Helena, is just called "Coat of arms" in Saint Helena. In Coat of arms of Saint Helena, the accessories are described as parts of the CoA; while in Coat of arms of Bermuda, a motto is described in the text as being placed under the CoA, (and the Flag of Bermuda only contains the shield, which there indeed is called the CoA).

My English is not good enough to cope with heraldic blazonry. To judge from the wp articles and the OED, it seems to be better to restrich the term "coat of arms" to the shield, and use something else (e.g. "achievement of arms") for the shield together with accessories (including any motto). IMHO, however, the main thing is to employ an unambiguous terminology, as far as possibly. JoergenB (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In short, the confusion isn't us, it's one that pervades almost the whole of heraldic literature (in English). It's not going to resolve itself soon, and it would be impossible to exert any sort of rule across Wikipedia which isn't reflected in the sources used to create it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
If that is the case, then wp isn't the right place for introducing a more precise terminology. However, perhaps the different usages could be explained explicitly in our article Coat of arms? JoergenB (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

English coat of arms equivalent terminology

Hello everybody.

I've been editing some pages about Polish surnames and families and have run into a situation. In Polish heraldry, from what I understand, there are coats of arms that are used by many families. For example, Ślepowron coat of arms was used by 993 surnames/families. Then we have what the Polish call "herb własny", literally "our coat of arms" or "coat of arms of self". These coats of arms were only used by a single family.

For example, people belonging to the various branches of the family Piotrowski used a variety of different coats of arms -- Ginwiłł, Jastrzębiec, Ślepowron, Świnka, etc. etc.. But Pietrowski nobles who were descended from the Tartar Naiman-Beg used only one coat of arms, their "herb własny", and no other branch was permitted to use it. (That, at least, is my understanding of it. I am, admittedly, quite uninformed when it comes to these things.)

I was wondering, then, what the appropriate terminology is for the situation of the "herb własny" (in English, of course.) Is this unique to Polish/Lithuanian heraldry, or is it more widespread?

Thanks. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 01:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Orły nasze / Our Eagles, a bilingual Polish-English book published by the Jagiellonian University, translates herb własny as "personal device". It may not be the best rendition, though, because, as you know, it may be used by all members of a given family. So maybe "family device" then? — Kpalion(talk) 21:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"Bear Flag" Ensign

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Flag of California#State Ensign. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

notable flag question

As in a particular physical flag. Are ther any guidelines as to what constitutes a notable flag. Having come across Flag of Carillon I was wondering what made a preserved flag notable of itself. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Royal Arms of the United Kingdom

Couldn't help but notice when watching the royal wedding that the arms HM The Queen and the rest of the Windors were using on their cars didn't have a winged Irish harp, just a plain one. Is this now common practice amongst the royals and should a new image be created for the article? I'm not really sure where to look for sources, though. JonChappleTalk 08:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Arms of the United Kingdom.svg is already like that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah. Getting mixed up. Thanks. JonChappleTalk 09:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, another question—when and why was the winged harp changed to a plain one? Accordingly to the filename of the picture on the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland article, it looked like that version of the arms lasted 'til 1952. Why '52? It's not explained in the history section of the Royal Arms of the United Kingdom article—that just treats the arms 1837–present as one design. Thanks, JonChappleTalk 22:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Elizabeth II was crowned in 1952. I'd posit that it's a modification in recognition of her authority. (Just a guess.) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 01:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Her accession to the throne was on her father's death in 1952, but she was not crowned until 2 June 1953.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. No-one knows for sure then? Perhaps Liz just preferred it without. It's odd that it's not documented on Wikipedia though. Showing a plain harp for the arms of the UK during the reign of Queen Victoria is anachronistic and incorrect. JonChappleTalk 09:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Anachronistic in terms of what was actually used at the time, perhaps, but by no stretch of the imagination is it incorrect. In heraldry, the drawn coat of arms is irrelevant; the definitive achievement is contained in the blazon, the written description of the achievement. So for example, the relevant portion of the (modern; I don't see any reference to the actual blazon used in QV's time, but I don't see any reason why it would have changed, as the basic arms have been unchanged since her accession) blazon reads thus:
third quarter Azure a harp Or stringed Argent (for Ireland)
In plain English, this means "A golden harp with silver strings on a blue background." The addition of wings, the degree of detail with which the harp is rendered, the specific shade of blue--all of these are left to the individual heraldic artist's interpretation. As long as the depiction clearly and unambiguously represents the blazon as written, it is by definition correct.
Moving back to your original question, HM had the visual depiction of the Canadian arms changed in 1957 when a new official version was created; the crown was changed to resemble St Edward's crown, which was apparently her preference (cite) over the previous 'Tudor' version. Amongst other changes, such as the depiction of the maple leaves in base from vert (green) to gules (red) which is relevant to my point above: the leaves are blazoned proper, which in heraldic language means they are to be drawn in their natural colour, without regard for the usual rules of colour as used in heraldry. So according to the blazon, one could just as easily draw the leaves green (as they were prior to 1957) as red, and be correct on both counts. If you follow the link I gave, you'll see a version from 1921 of the Canadian arms (which very closely resemble the British), showing the Irish harp as having a woman's body on the.. um.. sticky-up straight bit. Whatever it's called.
So my guess is that there's some combination of HM's preference and artistic licence at play. Since both the winged and non-winged versions of the harp are true to the blazon, both are equally correct; I would also suspect there is something of the trend towards simplification and cleaner lines over the past century or so, and rejection of overly-baroque renditions of anything, including achievements of arms. → ROUX ₪ 10:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Obviously maple leaves proper ought to change with the seasons. —Tamfang (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
hahahahhahahahahaa → ROUX ₪ 19:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Roux, thank you so much for explanation. I must admit, I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to heraldry, but I'm slowly learning, and I appreciate you taking the time to talk me through all that. Very informative; I hadn't realised that the womanly "winged" harp was never actually in the description and was instead something of an artistic choice—as you say, in the baroque, decorative trend of the time.
I agree that the most likely explanation is simply probably down to the personal choice of Her Majesty. It's interesting that the winged harp is still used on the Royal Standard, though—I presume that has the same "description" (I'm not sure of the proper word) as the arms?
I do think it's probably best if someone does put a note on the Royal Arms of the United Kingdom article to explain that traditionally a winged harp has been used, but has fallen out of fashion in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. I can't have been the only one confused by it. JonChappleTalk 10:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The description is known as the blazon. (The language the description is written in is also called blazon, it's a bastardized version of Norman French). The Royal Standard may be older than the newer depictions of the arms, or it may just be as I said: both are equally correct. Think of it this way: the blazon is like a recipe; it is the definitive source. Different chefs will approach the exact same recipe different ways; their plates will look different. But the underlying structure is identical. As for stating that traditionally a winged harp has been used, please go ahead and add it--but make sure you have reliable sources to back it up first. :) Basically what I'm saying is, as long as the 1st and fourth quarters are red with yellow (gold) lions (in a specific posture, with blue tongues and claws), the 2nd quarter is a red lion within a double flowered border on yellow (gold), and the third is blue with a golden silver-stringed harp, the arms are correct (well, including the supporters and crest and whatnot). The specific details are irrelevant from an heraldic standpoint. From a visual identity standpoint, of course, it makes sense for there to be an official depiction that is used everywhere. Whence arises the confusion most people have of 'this' version being correct and 'that' version being incorrect. Again with the recipe example: I could give you my recipe for, say, shepherd's pie. We could both follow it to the letter, and while mine will look very different from yours (sorry, I'm a pro :P), we will both have made shepherd's pie in the same way. → ROUX ₪ 10:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Blazon, got it. :) Have added a small sentence about the disuse of the winged harp with a source, so hopefully that's satisfactory. The source itself is interesting reading anyway—apparently there've been all kinds of variations of harps, lions, colours, etc on the standard, but I understand now that's been down to personal preference of the designer/sovereign rather than any hard and fast change in rules. I personally like the 1937 standard best (see link) with the swirly bit at the bottom, but I'm a sucker for art deco and all that fancypants stuff anyway. Thanks again for your help. JonChappleTalk 11:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a version with any swirly bits? Am I blind? → ROUX ₪ 19:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow, interesting discussion, can't believed I just missed it! I was going to say essentially the same thing as Roux, although I took some artistic license on my own accord :P I usually follow as many existing examples and sources as possible. However from my experience there is never a single definitive example. I have seen plenty of examples of the Gaelic harp being use prior to Elizabeth II's reign, I even found one example of a harp with a lion's head on it (?). So I took a leap and just decided, using my best judgement. But kudos to JonChapple for actually finding a source that actually explained this phenomenon, makes me much happier knowing that I am not the only one who wondered why there is a difference. And now at least I know that there was actually a reason for this. But just in case, I just uploaded the versions with the winged harp on to Commons, you know in case people preferred it. Sodacan (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • UK
    UK
  • UK (in Scotland)
    UK (in Scotland)

Nice one, Sodacan. Didn't realise how many of these you were behind! Just one more point of interest: the standard on the front of Her Maj's transportation for her visit to Ireland today has a plain Gaelic harp. JonChappleTalk 12:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of flags generally in Wikipedia

Q: Does this project in any way cover the use of flag icons, or flag images, in Wikipedia articles generally? IF not, should it? WizOfOz (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No and no. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Why not and why not? WizOfOz (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
This project focuses on flags and heraldic devices themselves. Discussions about their usage on Wikipedia almost always have nothing at all to do with the flag, but are mere politics my comparison. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:MOSICON is what your looking for Gnevin (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Need a little help!

Hey guys, my article was deleted 2 years ago by AfD. Now I'm trying to put it back. I'm just having a hard time time explaining why it needs to exist. I also can't understand why other gallery articles exist without a single source, while mine requires a 3rd party source? Could you guys help me to undelete it? And is it possible to list this article in this project after it gets undeleted? Thanks! Pampi1010 (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted in the past for being an image gallery using copyrighted images. Technically, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a gallery (the Commons does that) so unless yours has a major significance, like lets say....BBC Identities, I can't imagine a page like that needs to exist. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
So why this article exist with no reference at all? It doesn't even contain explanation and history... Yes, I understand it's a major topic about the US, but basically, it's also a gallery. I just dont know what type of images it uses.
So, how must I deal with the photos? Any advice. Thanks! Pampi1010 (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Pampi1010,
A gallery showing a single image of one hundred different entities is quite different from a gallery showing one hundred images of a single entity. While a gallery is not the purpose of Wikipedia, that does not mean galleries can not exist. In the instance you cited, a gallery is best, as a hub to collect all the seals and emblems of numerous American states and territories and redirects you to more specific information. Your article would not be a hub. The reason there is no sourcing is because it is a hub, which links to the article where it is sourced. Everything needs a source on Wikipedia, but that source does not need to be repeated to nausea. Also, pointing out exceptions does not another exception make. Please have a better reasoning, because "but they got to" will not get you very far.
Kindly,
Dave Pritchard (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks David Pritchard.
I'm not saying what should and what should not exist... I was just wondering why my article cannot. I've encountered other admins, and you guys have made me understand the problem of my article. However, I just really want to have this article, so I'm doing everything to make this acceptable in all aspects. Thank you very much! Pampi1010 (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

FIAV symbols

Why are the symbols of the FIAV is such wide spread use? We don't use these sort of icons for other projects Gnevin (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not? → ROUX ₪ 15:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
They are extremely obscure and don't help the casual reader, rather they hide information Gnevin (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Standard tinctures?

Hello. I recently started designing SVG coat of arms images for Catholic dioceses in the U.S. (They're on Commons here.) A user from the Spanish Wikipedia just informed me that there are "standard" tinctures that are preferred for heraldic images on Commons. (I had been using whatever I thought looked best aesthetically on an image-to-image basis.) He provided a link to the Spanish guide, which is here. Is there such a guideline to be found here on the English Heraldry and Vexillology project, and where might I find it if it does exist? — AlekJDS talk 00:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No there is not, please contribute and use whatever looks best. Sodacan (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Tinctures generated electronically for display on a monitor will necessarily be different from the most common painted colors in historical depictions, and will also look different to different viewers on differnt monitors with different settings. The Spanish Wikipedia project may have adopted standards, but we haven't adopted any here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Blasonics ®

Announcement of a lecture at the Heraldry Society:

Wednesday 18 May 2011
BLASONICS: a new heraldry for a new age
Clive Cheesman, Esq. MA PhD, Richmond Herald of Arms
To speak to a new generation in a new millennium, heraldry must reinvent itself. In a shifting, questioning, pluralist society where the old certainties are looking tired and worn, the top-down, linear and exclusive discipline needs a makeover. What is called for is a democratic and self-aware artform that overflows restrictive categories and resists simple analysis while achieving multi-platform deliverability to a new, demanding, media-savvy audience. Replacing boundaries with porous, fractal liminality, and conventional authority with unashamedly recursive creativity, Blasonics ® – the new language of heraldic design – will encode interactivity, empower the end-point user and elide the distinction between what is (taken for) granted and what is possible. Chairman: David White, Esq. MA, Somerset Herald of Arms

Wow. No obvious relevance to Wikipedia (yet), but I thought y'all might be amused. —Tamfang (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Whaaaaargarbl I wish I could have gone to that! → ROUX ₪ 19:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Question about flag colours

Specifications have recently been agreed on for the colours of the flag of Thailand. This scanned page is a draft for Thai Industrial Standard specifications, which gives Munsell values 5R4/12 for the red, and 7.5PB2/4 for the blue (indigo). I compared them with corresponding RGB values from the table here, but the results looked very much washed-out on screen. Given the nature of the media these specifications were intended for, could a better RGB conversion for on-screen representation be suggested? Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I been trying to get that document for a while, so if you have access to the full thing, please let me know how it was done. Anyways, Munsell has been a problem for me because it is used officially on the Japanese, Sri Lanka and South Korean flags; I always use http://www.eonet.ne.jp/~s-inoue/CO6_henkan/index-a.html for Munsell colors when I did it for the Japanese flags. I will give it a shot and see what happens. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Flag of Thailand (TIS 982).svg is what I came up with. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. I don't have any more info other than that from here, but I guess I could transcribe and translate the dialogue if you want. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
How to fix the thumbnail cache though..? --Paul_012 (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
That's fine; we already knew of the ratios of the flag itself and of each stripe, just the colors have been a mystery until now. There are two TIS documents related to the flag that are in committee stage (982 and 980) and it has been like that for several years. Thanks for the heads up. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Pantone for those colors from this blog: [1] My comment: The Pantone red color is more bright and a little pinkish than TIS. I think it's not right matching. Pantone Solid Coated Chart --Octra Bond (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Another user on the Commons showed me a similar chart hosted on a Facebook page with the Pantone colors at http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=184652988267866&set=a.103840809682418.6548.100001694983517&type=1&ref=nf where do the Pantone colors come from? As for the Pantone colors, http://www.pantone.com/pages/pantone/colorfinder.aspx is where I get the colors to use it. I do believe Munsell is dark when used online because a lot of Japanese flags and some flags of other countries (S. Korea, Sri Lanka and Thailand) use Munsell colors for flags. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know why the codes come from. By the way in the comments, the page's admin (Thai Flag Museum) suggests other Pantone codes for red and blue, "1797 C" and "276 C" respectively, from its project instead. They look better than Munsell. --Octra Bond (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Munsell was mostly used for coloring rocks and I am not sure why it made the transition to flags or when. I agree that Pantone does look better, but until I know what their source is (or if a government adopted it) I can't use Pantone. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of Canadian flag at Royal Standard of the United Kingdom

There is presently a dispute over whether or not the Prince of Wales' Personal Canadian Flag (though not the Queen's Personal Canadian Flag or the Duke of Cambridge's Personal Canadian Flag) belongs in the article Royal Standard of the United Kingdom. If members of this project could contribute their opinions to the discussion already opened at Talk:Royal Standard of the United Kingdom, it would be appreciated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Arthurian heraldry - article at AfD

The recent article Attributed arms of Knights of the Round Table, which consists of c 150 illustrations of the arms of Arthurian figures based on the blazons collected by Pastoureau, has been nominated for deletion. (No, I didn't create it). No clear reason has been given, except for a suggestion that the artwork constitutes OR, but the article was copied direct from the French Wikipedia without translation, which didn't help it at all. I've translated it, added sources, references and a brief intro, but some more eyes would be really useful - and if they belong to people who understand heraldry / Arthurian legend, or both, all the better. HeartofaDog (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, you look away for a couple of weeks and anything can happen. Does the French article still exist? I'd like to see it. —Tamfang (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It looks like this one http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armorial_des_Chevaliers_de_la_Table_Ronde --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

what is a star?

Hexagram has this:

In heraldry and to a lesser extent vexillology a "star" is assumed to be a six-pointed figure, like a Star of David, but not hollow and with radiating wavy lines. The more familiar five-pointed star shape is known as a mullet or molet.

It is my understanding that:

  • Number of points is not a defining feature of mullets; mullets of N points exist, and the same shield may be represented at different times with five or six points.
  • In Scotland, a mullet is pierced, and its unpierced sibling is caled a star.

Hexagram is not a heraldry article, so perhaps I'm getting bothered over nothing. Should we change the passage? How? —Tamfang (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This is for my mere curiosity.

Heraldry in The Three Musketeers (1948 film) is generally good, what little appears: Richelieu's arms, the British royal banner. An unfamiliar banner is seen in at least two shots: d'azur à la croix d'argent, chargée de neuf fleurs-de-lis d'or. Does anyone happen to know if it's approximately real? —Tamfang (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Topic can handle you now

I've considerably upgraded Template:Topic to have more features and to handled multi-topic projects like this:

{{Topic|Heraldry and vexillology|article=Heraldry|article2=Vexillology|category=Heraldry|category2=Vexillology}}

produces:

{{Topic|simple=yes|Heraldry and vexillology|article=Heraldry|article2=Vexillology|category=Heraldry|category2=Vexillology}}

produces:

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 17:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

adding an image of coat of arms to infobox nobility

Please see Template talk:Infobox nobility.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

double Spain

Everything in Coats of arms of the autonomous communities of Spain is also in List of coats of arms of Spain. I'm just sayin'. —Tamfang (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Flags

Hi everyone. Is the section "Kurdish Political Flags" necessary for the article Flag of Kurdistan ? When you have time, could you visit Talk:Flag of Kurdistan#Kurdish political flags ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2011‎ (UTC)

arms of the peers

I am trying to make svg versions of the arms of every armiger starting with the British peers, and putting them in their articles. I have gotten most of the Dukes, and now am on the marquesses, having a little trouble with some of the blazons though. Tinynanorobots (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Fraud?

Hi guys; I was informed by a friend that a vector of a possible family crest that was sent my way (with no details on its origin) may be a fraud. Using the wonderfully extensive articles you guys have written, I can tell you the shield is shaped a bouche. The design is gules, a bend azure with three mullets or charged on the bend azure field. The helmet is argent with mantel gules, lined or. The helmet is barred and has or detailing and has a coronet on top. The coronet has eight points five visible). Of the points, four (three visible) have strawberry leaves with pearls, and the other four (two visible) are bare. There are no supporters. Cresting the coronet is a white lion (waist up) wielding a sword.

My patriarchal family tree (as far as it has been traced) goes back to Niederkirchen bei Deidesheim as early as 1752. Any pointers in my research are welcome; thanks! Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 02:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, there is no such thing as a 'family crest.' For one thing, the 'crest' is the bit of a coat of arms that goes above the shield. Secondly, coats of arms are inherited from the original bearer, and remain unchanged in a direct male line according to strict primogeniture; they are differenced (other elements added) for other inheritors. (Women can inherit and transmit arms as well, see heraldic heiress). One coat, one person. Arms do not belong to a family. → ROUX ₪ 03:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, so if this is a real one, it would indicate an individual in my ancestry was a noble or something. Thanks for clearing that up. Any pointers on how I can go about confirming its validity? Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 18:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
No, it only indicates that someone in your ancestry was awarded (or possibly assumed) a coat of arms. It is likely that they were nobility of some sort (or at least knighted) but not guaranteed. I have no idea where you should start your research. → ROUX ₪ 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
One person one coat is a British thing, and even then many Englishmen don't difference their arms. Again, only in Britain arms were restricted to nobility(now days it has changed). However, if your ancestors had arms in the middle ages, they probably weren't peasants. The shield shape is up to the artist(as long as it is a shield). The question to its validity is the source. The helmet and coronet suggest nobility. The Azure bend on a Gules field is a violation of the rule of tincture. Tinynanorobots (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I was under the impression a bend counts as a field, but I'm no expert on this. The only explanation I can come up with for apparent fraud (judging by the elaborate detailing and near-accuracy) is that someone found a professionally-rendered vector and recolored it to their liking. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 22:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The rule of tincture is stricter in some countries than others, and stricter for mobile charges than for ordinaries. —Tamfang (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Iraq 2003-2004

Does anyone know which Coat of arms was used during the time of US-administration 2003-2004? Was it only this one File:Cpa seal.gif, or did the Iraqi Governing Council use its on seal? I do not believe that the one used under Saddam continued to be in use after the US invasion until 2004. By the way, there is the same issue about the flag.--Antemister (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments requested at Flag of Western Sahara

Your comment is requested over at Talk:Flag of Western Sahara; there is an RfC underway there to help decide what the article contents should be. (There are a few different options, such as redirection, disambiguation, etc.) If you can take some time to share your opinion on the matter, it would be very much appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Heraldry_and_vexillology/Archive_2011&oldid=1136415203"