Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Category:Seals[edit]

English: Should this category be in Category:Heraldry ? What do you think about place only Category:Seals of nobility (which contain seals with coats of arms) in Category:Heraldry ?
Français : Cette catégorie a-t-elle sa place dans Category:Heraldry ? Ne vaudrait-il mieux pas que seule Category:Seals of nobility (qui présente des sceaux avec des blasons) soit présente dans Category:Heraldry ?

Zigeuner (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Entièrement d'accord. Les sceaux en eux-même n'ont pas de rapports à l'héraldique sauf s'ils représentent des armoiries. Bluebear2 (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Effectué. Je n'ai laissé dans Category:Heraldry que Category:Seals of nobility (qui ne présente que des sceaux portant des armes). Zigeuner (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
J'approuve absolument la distinction entre sceau et armoiries, mais la notion de noblesse me gêne ici : des membres de la noblesse peuvent très bien avoir un sceau sans armoiries (pour viser haut citons par exemple Charlemagne, mais on peut imaginer aussi des initiales, etc.) ; inversement des notables non nobles, des membres du clergé, des personnes morales comme les corporations ou les villes, peuvent avoir des armoiries et donc un sceau les représentant... Je serais plus favorable pour ma part à une catégorie Coats of arms on seals (sous-catégorie à la fois de Category:Seals et de Category:Heraldry). Qu'en pensez-vous ? Bruno (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Tout à fait d'accord pour la création de cette catégorie ! J'y adhère surtout pour le second cas présenté : celui de sceaux portant des armes de personnes non nobles.
En revanche, je m'interroge sur la nécessité de prévoir le cas de sceaux de nobles sans armoiries. Du point de vue théorique, je suis entièrement d'accord. Mais je me demande s'il est nécessaire de créer deux catégories qui seront des quasi-doublons (je crains que les utilisateurs ne cernent pas bien la différence, et aient la flemme de mettre leurs fichiers dans les deux catégories). Qui plus est, je ne cerne pas très bien ce que recouvre l'expression "Seals of nobility" : je ne suis pas sûr que ce soit synonyme de "Sceaux de personnes nobles". En gros, pour des raisons pratiques, je me demande s'il ne faudrait pas inclure la catégorie "Seals of nobility" dans "Coats of arms on seals".
Le débat devient l'éternel débat entre orthodoxie et pragmatisme (tiens, je n'ai pas l'habitude d'être tenant du second ! Peut-être la flemme d'ajouter une catégorie à toutes les images déjà présentes dans "seals of nobility"...)
Zigeuner (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
J'ai créé Category:Coats of arms on seals. Finalement, je n'ai pas inclus "Seals of nobility" dedans ; j'ai seulement fait un renvoi vers cette catégorie. Zigeuner (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Crowns / Couronnes[edit]

I find unclear the categorization if crowns in Commons:

  • Category:Crowns in heraldry should only contain arms bearing crowns as charge. Nevertheless, it contains also crowns above the shield.
  • Category:Crowns in crest contains only crowns as external ornament, but not necessary "in crest", as said by the name of the category.
  • Category:Heraldic crowns seems contain mainly representations of crowns alone, but not only: there are also arms bearing crowns within.

To be clearer, what about this proposition of reorganisation:

Zigeuner (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That wording would be problematic. On shields I'd interpret as being in the crest. In shield would then be better. However I don't think any of the alternatives are very good since they break with how the category tree is normally named. I do however agree that the current naming scheme is problematic especially due to subcategories such as Category:Mural crowns in heraldry (subcategory of both Crowns in heraldry and Crowns in crest). /Lokal_Profil 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right: it is not good to break with how the category tree is normally named (following me, this naming could be discussed, but we will see later...). Nevertheless, I think it is necessary the categorization becomes clearer. Here is something nearer of the current naming scheme:

Zigeuner (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Think Category:Heraldic crowns alone would be better as just Category:Heraldic crowns with Category:Crowns (as external ornament) and Category:Crowns in crest as subcategories. Then also leaving Category:Crowns in heraldry as it is. the main reason for the last category remianing unchanged is because it fits in with the rest of the category tree. The alternative (which might be desireable) would be to find a better wording, e.g. Category:XXX as heraldic charges and then rename the whole category tree. /Lokal_Profil 20:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your first sentence. You want to replace Category:Heraldic crowns by Category:Heraldic crowns alone (I'm OK with that !). But why Category:Crowns (as external ornament) and Category:Crowns in crest should be subcategories of Category:Heraldic crowns alone ?
I agree to leave Category:Crowns in heraldry as it is, waiting for renaming of the category tree.
Zigeuner (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I expressed myself unclear. What I meant was keep Category:Heraldic crowns (instead of renaming it Category:Heraldic crowns alone). /Lokal_Profil 03:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I am a latecomer to this conversation, but my thoughts on this can be seen at User talk:W!B:#Crowns in heraldry. Wilhelm meis (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Category:Coats of arms to be classified as Category:Unidentified coats of arms[edit]

What do you think about that (see Category:Coats of arms to be classified) ? I do not agree with this proposition. You can give your opinion on the Talk page of the category.
Zigeuner (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

English: There will be no renaming.
Français : La catégorie ne sera pas renommée.

Zigeuner (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fess and bars[edit]

Français : (missing text)

Je n'aime pas le nom de la catégorie Fesses in heraldry (et ses dérivés), et ce pour deux raisons. D'abord, pour un francophone, le mot fesses évoque quelque chose de très différent et une recherche par mot clef réserverait sans doute des surprises (remarquez que je n'ai même pas essayé). Ensuite et surtout, puisque Commons est anglophone, la catégorie doit respecter un anglais correct ; or le mot fess n'est jamais employé au pluriel car à partir de deux la fasce anglaise devient bar. C'est pourquoi je préférerais une catégorie Fess and bars in heraldry (j'ai d'ailleurs créé sur ce modèle la sous-catégorie Fess and bars embattled in heraldry). C'est discutable, j'en conviens, car rien n'empêche d'écrire au pluriel un mot qui est toujours employé au singulier par ailleurs. Bruno (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A fess is always single in English, for as soon as they are two or more they are called bars. So I would rather name this category Fess and bars in heraldry than the current Fesses in heraldry. Do you agree to rename this category? I already created the subcategory Fess and bars embattled in heraldry according to this rule. Bruno (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportZigeuner (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fesses existe en anglais (cf. s:The Grammar of Heraldry/Chapter 4 par exemple) après je ne sais pas si il est courant. Il est courant dans les descriptions en anglais des fichiers ici en tout cas, donc si c'est effectivement une faute, il faudrait corriger cela. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 14:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Le mot fesses pluriel existe evidemment, et "fesses in heraldry" n'est pas plus incongru que "Terraces in base in heraldry" au pluriel, bien que je ne connaisse aucun blason ayant plusieurs champagne dans le même champ. Toutefois l'union de fasces et bars est "internationalement" nécessaire puisque la Fr:fasce, au delà de trois, devint burelle ou trangle, alors que le changement en GB:Bar se fait dès la deuxième. Avec les divises (bar) et les jumelles (Bar-gemels) ça va faire une catégorie "épaisse". --Ssire (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support — Agree 100%. It has been two years; high time it was changed! Kiltpin (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2012

Léopards[edit]

Français : (missing text)

Je ne suis pas à l'aise avec la catégorie Leopards in heraldry puisque le léopard francophone semble généralement appelé en anglais lion passant guardant. Dans une catégorisation anglophone, il serait donc plus correct à mon avis d'utiliser de préférence Lions guardant in heraldry (synonyme de la précédente), sous-catégorie de Lions in heraldry. Bruno (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The category Leopards in heraldry uses the French word léopard whereas this animal is mostly called lion passant guardant in English heraldry (or at the least it seems so to me, but I am no specialist). As the name of the Commons' categories are in English, I think we should use Lions guardant in heraldry instead of Leopards in heraldry. Bruno (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportZigeuner (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


Français : Pour être exact, il faudrait renommer la catégorie en Category:Lions passant guardant in heraldry (puisque Category:Lions rampant guardant in heraldry, c'est-à-dire les léopards lionnés, existe déjà).
English: It would be better to rename it in Category:Lions passant guardant in heraldry (as Category:Lions rampant guardant in heraldry exists).

Zigeuner (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Ça me va très bien. Bruno (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
It also appears that in British heraldry, there is the possibility of a leopard passant guardant, which makes this really confusing. Tinynanorobots (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
So does this mean that it was decided, because it does not appear to be changed.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinynanorobots (talk • contribs) 04:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC) (UTC)
Français : (missing text)
Tinynanorobots, quel est la différence entre un « leopard passant guardant » et un « lion passant guardant » ?
Cordialement,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Tinynanorobots, what's the difference between a «leopard passant guardant» and a «lion passant guardant» ?
Regards,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Français : (missing text)
✓ Done . À noter qu'il reste encore toutes les sous-catégories utilisant le mot « léopard » qu'il faudrait aussi renommer. Je vais commencer à m'en occuper.
Cordialement,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Silver bezants?[edit]

Français : (missing text)

La catégorie Bezants in heraldry prétend regrouper tous les besants francophones (or ou argent), à mon avis de façon abusive puisque - à ma connaissance - le bezant anglophone est toujours d'or (et c'est tellement évident qu'on ne le précise même pas) et prend le nom de plate quand il est d'argent. Voir à ce sujet ce que j'avais déjà dit sur la page de discussion associée. Bruno (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In French heraldry the word besant means a roundel made of metal (or/argent). But it seems to me that we cannot use the category Bezants in heraldry for roundels argent, because in English heraldry a bezant is always or, and is named plate when argent. See the talk page where I proposed to rename this category. Bruno (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support — Je propose de la renommer Category:Roundels of metal in heraldry (et de créer Category:Roundels of colour in heraldry, par symétrie). Zigeuner (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to just have a Category:Roundels in heraldry with each specific tincture as a subcategory (only 8 of them anyway). /Lokal_Profil 03:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Well... Maybe it would be better to have no subcategory at all (all roundels, metal or colour, in Category:Roundels in heraldry)! Zigeuner (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Keep cat name. In Spanish terminology as well, "bezantes" refers only to gold or argent (metal) roundels. Roundel (Roeles) is use to name other colors. I think that it is enought to include a explanatory text. See armoria.info. --SanchoPanzaXXI (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but the category names are not in Spanish neither in French. Bezants doesn't refer to the same thing that besants and bezantes. We can do anything against the facts that the categories names are in English, and that English words don't have the same meanings as ours. I thnik it is better to have correct and clear categories names ; translations and explanotory texts have to be given for non-English speakers. Zigeuner (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The use of English here is to simplify communication, not an imposition..commons is a repository of images to be used in different enciclopedical versions.--SanchoPanzaXXI (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Is the communication simplified if we use the English word with the Spanish/French meaning ? Moreover, the use of English in categories name is an imposition (see Commons:Categorías#Uso de las categorías), contrary to galleries name. I would prefer Commons to be more internationalized, but it is not the case. Zigeuner (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't corrupt my words, please. The solution is the use of introductory text to clearly state what particularities have a english word in other languages. And by the way, heraldic words like "panela" or "engolada", tipic from spanish heraldry, has no translation in english. --SanchoPanzaXXI (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Renaming the category tree[edit]

As per the discussion above. Would it be desirable to rename the whole category tree from Category:XXX in heraldry to Category:XXX as heraldic charges (or any other suggestion). The current naming convention does currently not reflect what the categories are expected to contain. /Lokal_Profil 03:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, has this page been advertised anywhere? /Lokal_Profil 03:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I try to put a link toward the Commons:WikiProject Heraldry on each subcategory of Category:Heraldry (with {{Project Heraldry}}). Moreover, a link to this discussion should be put on the talk page of Category:Heraldic figures. Zigeuner (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


I totaly agree with creating a tree Category:XXX as heraldic charges.
Nevertheless, I think categories Category:XXX in heraldry should not disappear. So they should not be renamed to Category:XXX as heraldic charges, but Category:XXX as heraldic charges should be created as subcategories of Category:XXX in heraldry (as well as Category:XXX as heraldic external ornaments).
Actually a lot of categories Category:XXX in heraldry are subcategories of Category:XXX (for example, Category:Capercaillies in heraldry is a subcategory of Category:Tetrao urogallus). I don't think it would be clear that Category:XXX contain Category:XXX as heraldic charges, Category:XXX as heraldic supporter, Category:XXX as heraldic crest, etc.
Moreover, if you are looking for a special figure (for example a tiger), it would be interesting to have a category where you can find all coats of arms bearing this figure, insted of looking in charges categories, and then in crests categories, and then in supporters categories...
The table above is a presentation of what could be the new category tree (I took the lion as example; ... means all the others subcategories):
Zigeuner (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Category:Heraldic figures Category:Heraldic charges Category:Animals as heraldic charges Category:Lions as heraldic charges
...
... ...
Category:Heraldic external ornaments Category:Heraldic external ornaments by type Category:Animals as heraldic external ornaments Category:Lions as heraldic external ornaments Category:Lions in supporters
Category:Lions in crests
... ...
... ... ...
Category:Heraldic supporters Category:Animals in supporters Category:Lions in supporters
...
... ...
Category:Heraldic crests Category:Animals in crests Category:Lions in crests
...
... ...
Category:Heraldic figures by type Category:Animals in heraldry Category:Lions in heraldry Category:Lions as heraldic external ornaments Category:Lions in supporters
Category:Lions in crests
Category:Lions as heraldic charges
... ...
... ... ...
Bravo pour cette proposition, qui me convient très bien pour l'essentiel. Si je peux me permettre deux remarques de détail, pour faire avancer le schmilblick :
  • My English is not very good mais j'aurais écrit Lions as heraldic charges ou Lions as an heraldic charge plutôt que Lions as heraldic charge. Me trompe-je ?
  • Dans le nom Heraldic figures by type, le par type ne me paraît pas assez explicite (il pourrait aussi bien s'appliquer à la distinction charges/ornements alors que ce n'en est justement pas l'objet). Il faudrait trouver quelque chose comme par motif (j'allais dire par figure) mais je ne sais pas le dire convenablement en anglais. Il existe déjà Heraldic figures by theme : est-ce que cela ne conviendrait pas, à condition de se mettre d'accord sur les thèmes ? Ou, mieux, simplement remplacer dans ton arbre Heraldic figures par Category:Elements of Coat of arms, et Heraldic figures by type par Heraldic figures (ce qui ramène au par figure que j'évoquais plus haut).
Bien cordialement, Bruno (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Quick comment: Yes it would be Lions as heraldic charges. There are a few more that need to be pluralised(?). I've updated the tree above according to this. As for Heraldic figures by type I agree that it's not the most exact description, not sure about a better one though. Also we can't forget about Category:Elements_of_Coat_of_arms which is the tree that should (in theory) hold heraldic charges (and other template images) when they are not on a shield/a supporter/in crest. The tree above definitely looks like a good start though. /Lokal_Profil 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
J'ai pris en compte vos remarques. J'ai élaboré une nouvelle proposition, qui me semble plus simple : Category tree (l'image n'est que sur wikipédia, pas sur Commons. Ce soir, je n'ai pas le courage de l'améliorer, ni de la charger sur Commons, mais vous pouvez déjà vous faire une idée). Zigeuner (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't Human figures in heraldry etc. all be within "Heraldic figures by theme"? Also just want to double-check that I got it right. Heraldic charges would be a subcat of Heraldic figures, not of "Elements of Coat of arms"? Which (by the way) should be renamed either "Elements of coat of arms" or "Elements of Coat of Arms". /Lokal_Profil 00:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
BTW dropped a note on Commons talk:Categories for discussion in case anyone over there is interested. /Lokal_Profil 00:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Category:Heraldic figures by theme: "Human figures in heraldry" etc. have not to be in this category. Actually these are categories that list figures by their nature (Human figures, Geometrical figures, etc.). But in "Heraldic figures" there were also other categories that list figures by theme ("Religion in heraldry", etc.). It is not the same: for example, "Saint Peter in heraldry" was in "Human figures in heraldry", but also in "Religion in heraldry". As each figure is in a category "by nature", I thought it was better to move apart the categories "by theme". Maybe I should put a message in [:Category:Heraldic figures by theme]] saying that this category does not list every figures, and that each subcategory in this category should also be in a subcategory of Category:Heraldic figures. Is it clear ?
  • I think Category:Heraldic charges should be in Category:Elements of Coat of arms. It is clearly an element of a coat of arms, as the shield, the external ornaments, etc. What I don't much like in the category tree I proposed is that "Heraldic charges" and "Heraldic figures as charges" contain the same subcategories. But what could we do ? Each charge is a "figure"! (there is not this problem with "Heraldic external ornaments" and "Heraldic figures as external ornaments", because every ornaments are not a "figure" (for example "Mottos").
  • I totally agree that "Elements of Coat of arms" should be renamed "Elements of coat of arms" (but "Elements of Coat of Arms" doesn't seem good to me : is there is a reason to write "Coat of Arms" instead of "coat of arms" ?). Maybe it could also be renamed "Coat of arms elements" (as "SVG coat of arms elements").
Zigeuner (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed reply. Ok. Now I understand the "by theme" and yes keeping that for "abstract ideas" such as religion etc. sounds good. What I meant about removing Heraldic charges from Elements of Coat of arms is that Heraldic charges (and Heraldic external ornaments) ar by default always also Heraldic figures unlike Heraldic divisions, Heraldic tinctures etc. Unless I'm getting confused that is. (Which is very likely) I think firstly we need to define what we mean with "heraldic figure" and therefore also what things are not "heraldic figures". If for instance (my interpretation of your image) all heraldic charges except heraldic ordinares are also heraldic figures then heraldic charges should simply contain only the categories heraldic ordinares and heraldic figures as charges.
As for the capitalisation "Elements of coat of arms" looks better to me then "Elements of Coat of Arms" but I know that a lot of native English speakers are picky about this and I think the latter is probably more correct. That's not necessarily a problem for us though as long as we are consistent.
Also dropped a note on en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology since they are probably a good source for the correct english terms needed in the Category names. /Lokal_Profil 23:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I like what I'm seeing in the table above! I agree that 'Heraldic figures as [charges/crests/etc.]' is not needed, but I would also say 'Heraldic figures as external ornaments' is unnecessary. I always took "heraldic figures" to mean any symbol used in heraldry, be it an animal or object, ordinary, or any other geometric shape (e.g. star), whether it be used as a charge, crest or supporter. I think the "elements" that are not "figures" would include helmets (except when used as a charge), crowns (except when used as a charge), torses and mantling, mottoes or war cries, and compartments. Am I wrong in my assessment of what is meant by the term "figure"? By my logic, 'Heraldic figures as...' would be unnecessary, as the subcategories of these could be grouped without the term "figure" (i.e. all subcats that would go in 'Heraldic figures as charges' could instead go into 'Heraldic charges', which in turn would go in 'Heraldic figures' as well as 'Elements of coat of arms'; the same would apply to crests and supporters as well). If it is of any help, as a native English speaker, I would say "Elements of coat of arms" is the winner. There is never any need to capitalize coat of arms in English, but we often do abbreviate it CoA for some reason. Wilhelm meis (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I see Elements of coat of arms as ungramatical. It should be either Elements of a coat of arms or Elements of coats of arms. Oosoom Talk 10:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't have any problem with "Elements of a coat of arms". I just didn't think we usually include articles (a, an, the) in category names, but I'm not very concerned with that either way. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour à tous !
Qu'en est-il de cette proposition ? Les catégories héraldiques sur Commons se multiplient, il est donc grand temps d'y apporter un peu plus de logique et de systémisme avant que la tâche ne devienne impossible Smile !
Cordialement,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

To all contributors in this project, rgds, --SanchoPanzaXXI (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot ! But since you wrote here, you are also a contributor in this project ! Rgds Zigeuner (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Filiera[edit]

Congratulations for the project. I need some help to categorize some COA that has something that in spanish and catalan we say "filiera". A filiera is a third part of a bordure. For exemple: File:Escudo de Malla.svg, File:Escut de Collbató.svg or File:Escut d'Alella.svg. I don't find a specific category. Could anyone help me? Regards!! --Xavigivax (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that in English a "filiera" has not a specific word [1]. We need a solution for this problem. I thought two options, one of them will be categorize the "filieras" as Bordures in heraldry, explaining in Spanish and other languages that the category includes both, some like this:
Español: Borduras y filieras en heráldica
. The second option is create an other nested category in other language. What's your opinion? --Xavigivax (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Flag identification[edit]

Since flags seem to have been included in this project I thought I should share this link which I was recently told about. Should help in identifying flags which have been uploaded with insuficient information/categories. /94.193.242.248 17:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems indeed a wonderful tool. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 13:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical crests[edit]

I'm looking for crest elements. Specifically a cardinal's hat (complete with tassels). Can anyone help me find one or create one? OrangeDog (talkcontribs) 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Might be somethign in Ecclesiastical heraldry or Category:Ecclesiastical heraldry =) /Lokal_Profil 00:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that's where they're hiding, thanks. OrangeDog (talkcontribs) 02:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Organization[edit]

The organization is a bit odd for coats of arms. There are categories with only a few files in them, but that that have several subcategories in them that dispense the files one or two to a subcategory. There are repetitious subcategories as well. Is it at all possible to simplify it and have just one page and all subcategories upon it? Having all of the choices available at once may help prevent the poor categorization that is presently seen.

Something like this is what I have in mind, where plain text helps separate and organize the subcategories so a person does not need to go through so many pages to find the appropriate spot.

Coats of arms
This category is not meant as a catch all.
Any images found herein should be moved to the appropriate subcategory.

Elements of the shield
  • Animals
  • Ordinaries
  • Division of the field
  • Tincture of the field
Elements of the crest
  • Animals
Coat of arms of nobility

Xanderliptak (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

scottish coat of arms[edit]

There is an image on english wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FingaskRoyalCoatofArms.jpg currently the subject of dispute over its copyright status, but also perhaps as to identifying it. Can anyone possibly date it or explain what the copyright position is on coats of arms? I am not sure whether the plaque in the picture would count as a work of art, or simply a depiction of a coat of arms so no copyright to the artist who actually made it but perhaps crown copyright? Sandpiper (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Catogory by blason[edit]

Hello. What do you think about creating a specific category for very common blason? As an example, I have created Category:Gules a cross argent. I think this would be a good tool for chosing the best available image for a specific blason. BrightRaven (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that procedure could be very difficult to handle if blazoning is more complex than two or three attributes. Perhaps could be better a methode like mathematic formulas. I made a site of this kind: www.armoriale.org (which is a site whit software wiki and whitout advertising). You are invited to examine that procedure: if you agree on it, we could create the corresponding categories on wiki commons. Massimop (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see your message but I think a very good idea. A so good idea that I created lot of similar category. It allow to have more accurate category than Crosses in heraldry or Red and yellow in heraldry.

@Massimop: I didn't understand your point. First, if the blazon is complex we cant do this type of specific category (we need at the very least two blazon per category). Then, I didn't understand your site (but I don't speak italian) but it seems that we already have similar category here. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 13:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think of course this could only be done for very common and very simple blazons. It is interesting to create such categories only if the same blazon is borne by different entities. If a blazon, even simple, is borne by only one entity, it is a better idea to create Category:Coats of arms of XX. BrightRaven (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Of course. In the same way, the valais blasons are categorized under Category:Coats of arms of the canton of Valais but not Category:13 stars in heraldry. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 14:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I think that this is a terrible idea. We will have to have a Category for all 10 million possibilities. Kiltpin (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2012

Looking for name of heraldic ordinary[edit]

I am hoping to create category for a heraldic ordinary quite common in Finnish heraldry, but unfortunately I am missing English name for it. It is not party per pale, but merely like chief on side of shield instead of being on top. In Finnish it is called pieli and in Swedish post. Visible for example in these: Liminka.vaakuna.svg Kyyjärvi.vaakuna.svg Pielisjärvi.vaakuna.svg. I would be grateful for any advice. Thanks. --Care (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In french we have "adextré" Adextré2.png (for the right) or "senestré" (for the left). But it's wery uncommon. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 09:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Would it make sense to create Category:Adextré in heraldry and Category:Senestré in heraldry then, if no English names are found? --Care (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Mmmh, I don't know (category must be in English). Ask before to the en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, the may be have the answer. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 08:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Based on that, these could be Category:Side dexter in heraldry and Category:Side sinister in heraldry. Any objections? --Care (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I have now created Category:Sides in heraldry and Category:Sides sinister in heraldry. Thanks. --Care (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanx.
Just a question : why not put Category:Sides sinister in heraldry as a subcategory of Category:Sides in heraldry ? (same question for Category:Bends sinister in heraldry as a subcategory of Category:Bends in heraldry). Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 14:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Fine with me - actually I was wondering just the same. The reason for current setup of sides is indeed that I copied it as such from bends. --Care (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok we wait for other point of view. I contacted Ssire. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 12:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Ssire (talk · contribs) say no (translation by me) :
For french heraldry (and latine) Barre (bend sinister) and Bande (bend) are two differents pieces quite distinct. Their orientation is not the greatest difference. Thus, if ALL authors sort Bends in ordinaries, only a minority class the bend sinister in this category. The bend sinister serves as a break (often for bastard), the bend rarely (and then means something absolutely different). Bend can be an "augmentation", not the bend sinister. In short, do not mix...
So we have two solutions :
  • let it like it is statu quo
  • categorize bends sinister in bends AND in pieces (in bends for the english heraldry and in pieces for the french heraldry).
Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 10:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation needed[edit]

The blason.

Hello,

I need the exact english translation of: « D'azur au chevron d'or accompagné de trois étoiles du même. »

I think it something like: "Azure a chevron or with three stars the same" but I want to be sure to create the category. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 15:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

En fait le blasonnement mode GB tarde le plus possible l'annonce de la couleur, à la différence du français, qui utilisera "de même" pour éviter la répetition. Je ne connais pas d'utilisation de "the same" équivalent au francisme "de même" ou "du même". Ton blason s'ennonce plutôt: "Azure a chevron with three stars or". (Je suis allergique au Grand-Breton quand il s'agit de traiter de l'héraldique non GB, ce qui ne m'empêche pas d'avoir le regard GB quand il s'agit d'héraldique GB - et je trouverais malsain d'y apporter un autre regard, fut-il français...) Regard, --Ssire (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe between would be slightly more common than with in this case. Also, in British heraldry, straight-sided stars are called mullets (see en:Star (heraldry)). Thus the blazon would be "Azure a chevron between three mullets or." Dr pda (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Je confirme que "between" est le blasonnement GB correct, ainsi que "mullet", bien que star soit possible (star est plus géneral, mullet suppose 5 branches droites par défaut en GB, ce qui est le cas ici). --Ssire (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


I've read somewhere that in Scotland a mullet is pierced (called a spur-rowel in England) and the unpierced charge is a star. —Tamfang (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
L'étoile percée à six branches, qui se blasonne en français "molette (d'éperon)" est rendu par "mullet pierced" (et même parfois par "estoile pierced". Exemple BIACHES, Somme. "D'or chargé d'une molette d'azur au chef de sinople." traduit par "Or an estoile pierced azure a chief vert." [ici]). Le "British Hérald" de Thomas Robson donne: "Mullet pierced: witch seems more nearly to resemble the spur-rowel, having the hole or perforation, through which the pin passes and upon which it turns". Spur-rowel apparait dans le glossaire (avec une illustration) mais il s'agit d'un meuble figuratif de la molette d'éperon, et non de la symbolique étoile à six branches percée. --Ssire (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Coats of arms by tinctures[edit]

Hello/Salut,

English: In Category:Coats of arms by tinctures, we have Category:Argent (heraldry) and Category:Azure (heraldry) but Category:Blue and white in heraldry. It's weird, so I suggest to rename Category:Blue and white in heraldry in Category:Argent and azure in heraldry. Thus, it will be more logical and more heraldic (obviously, idem for the others categories).


Français : Dans la Category:Coats of arms by tinctures, nous avons Category:Argent (heraldry) et Category:Azure (heraldry) mais Category:Blue and white in heraldry. C'est bizarre, je propose donc de renommer Category:Blue and white in heraldry en Category:Argent and azure in heraldry. Ainsi, ce sera plus logique et plus héraldique (évidemment, la même chose pour les autres catégories).

Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 12:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good if the naming policy of all related categories was consistent. However, it should not be then limited only to blue and white but all heraldic colors. --Care (talk) 07:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree as well. Commons policy is English names for categories and the correct ones in this case are Azure and Argent. Obviously Azure would still be a subcategory of Blue. /Lokal_Profil 20:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree: heraldic categories should have heraldic names. Massimop (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

So just to be sure (before lauching CommonsDelinker), I propose :

Rename Category:Black and blue in heraldry to Category:Azure and sable in heraldry (12 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Black, blue, red in heraldry to Category:Azure, gules, sable in heraldry (5 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Black, blue, white in heraldry to Category:Argent, azure, sable in heraldry (59 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Black, blue, green in heraldry to Category:Azure, sable, vert in heraldry (3 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Black, blue, yellow in heraldry to Category:Azure, Or, sable in heraldry (60 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Black and white in heraldry to Category:Argent and sable in heraldry (369 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Black, green, white in heraldry to Category:Argent, sable, vert in heraldry (41 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Black, red, white in heraldry to Category:Argent, gules, sable in heraldry (213 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Black, white, yellow in heraldry to Category:Argent, Or, sable in heraldry (103 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Blue and white in heraldry to Category:Argent and azure in heraldry (745 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Green and white in heraldry to Category:Argent and vert in heraldry (282 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Purple and white in heraldry to Category:Argent and purpure in heraldry (21 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:Red and white in heraldry to Category:Argent and gules in heraldry (800 entries moved, 0 to go)
Rename Category:White and yellow in heraldry to Category:Argent and Or in heraldry (63 entries moved, 0 to go)
(and so on for the more than Is there any problems, errors, comments ?
Like for the current color system, in order to improve the categorization, the tinctures names are sort by name. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 09:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with these new categories. Massimop (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I start but then Docu come to me thinking this is « less accessible to the non-specialists ». So I open a Cfd. Could you give you opinion there ? Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/02/Coats of arms by tinctures. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut.
The discussion looks closed with a consensus for renaming but no one seems to have launched CommonsDelinker. /129.215.149.97 13:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Ooups, soory, I’ve been busy on others projects. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 18:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Attributs héraldiques[edit]

I just found this category and I see two problems with it:

  1. The name is in French, but categories should usually have English names
  2. From the description I can't understand which images should be in the category. (It is possible that the problem is with me not knowing much about heraldry)

Maybe this project know if the category is fine as it is, or what needs to be done with it. /Ö 12:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

  1. Right, it has probably to be rename : category:Variations of ordinaries ?
  2. The description link to en:Variations of ordinaries (and fr:Attribut (héraldique), but even in French I’m not sure of what it is exactly).
Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 10:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The description in English is "Variations of ordinaries and lines, attitude of animals". So it looks like the French word is more general than any single English word. That definition is very wide so it could possibly contain any coat of arms that does not use only plain lines or animals with their standard attitude. That will be a very large category and I don't see how useful it is (that is why I think I have not understood the description). For it to be useful I think subcategories for specific variations and attitudes are needed. Some such categories already exists in Category:Heraldic ordinaries (Category:Chequy ordinaries, Category:Wavy ordinaries, ...) and for attitudes I have found some categories for lions (for example Category:Lions passant in heraldry).
Another use for category could be to have only images illustrating specific variations like the ones used in en:Line (heraldry)#Gallery of different lines of partition. This is not what is currently in the category, so I don't think that is what it was intended for. /Ö 12:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
En français, "attribut héraldique" est encore plus vaste que ce qui est décrit ci-dessus, ça concerne aussi les couleurs, les positions les dispositions etc de n'importe quelle figure. Ça n'est donc pas pertinent pour en faire une seule catégorie. Cela dit, faire une categorie selon les attributs, exemple: "passant" ne me semble pas plus injustifié qu'une catégorie "lions". des catégories comme "lions passant" me semble inutiles et lourdes, il faudrait pouvoir faire des recherches avec des "et" et des "ou" avec des catégories monocritères. --Ssire (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wizard[edit]

For the reasons explained there, I used coats of arms as a sample at Usability issues#Wizard for searching (and categorizing). Obviously, it would need to work for other fields too. I thought you might be interested. -- User:Docu at 11:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong coats of arms[edit]

Hello. I have noticed that many coats of arms on Commons are wrong: their representations do not correspond with their blazonings. I have a suggestion about that: would not it be possible to create a template for them? I mean a template that would clearly inform about the nature ot the error and would also place them in a specific category (for example Category:Coats of arms to be corrected). This would allow to organize their correction systematically. What do you think about it? BrightRaven (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Encore faudra-t-il pouvoir préciser ce qui est fautif : le dessin ou le blasonnement – sinon les deux. The remaining difficulty will be to be able to know whether it is the representation which is wrong, or the blazoning, or both of them. --Ssire (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC) (roughly translated by Bruno (talk))
I know that for a couple of mine I've included the English blazon from a book. In a lot of these cases I've noticed that it disagrees with the Swedish (official) blazon. I guess there are more cases like that where at first it might look as though the representation is wrong when in reality it's the blazon (or the translation given here) which is wrong. /Lokal_Profil 02:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
In some cases, it can be difficult to find what is the error, but sometimes it is very obvious, like for File:Armoiries Saxe.png, where the image is obviously wrong. Another difficult case in my opinion is File:Léon.svg. The author intended to create an image for the coat of arms of Léon, which is "Or a lion morné sable". He made it wrong and drew "Or a lion sable". Should we correct the image or change the description and keep it as a representation of "Or a lion sable" (which is among others the "primitive" blazon of the counts of Flanders)? BrightRaven (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Le mieux est de le remplacer par File:Blason Léon (Bretagne).svg correct (encore que le "sans queue" ne fasse pas l'unanimité pour morné) et en tous cas mieux intitulé. --Ssire (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
There are other representations of "Or a lion morné sable" in Category:Lions morné in heraldry, but what do you think about my proposition of creating a template? BrightRaven (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sea dragons[edit]

Is there a name for dragons like the blue one in File:Coat of Arms of Sophie, Countess of Wessex.svg? Rocket000 (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In English heraldry, it is a wyvern. See [2]. BrightRaven (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Rocket000 (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Sed don't use this category (not international) when the blason said "Dragon", Thanks. --Ssire (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
But it is a dragon, right? Rocket000 (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think there's some conflict between everyday English and heraldic terms (of which I am not familiar with). I wanted to subcategorize Dragons in heraldry by type of dragon. Wyverns are a type of dragon. Hydras are a type of dragon (well, serpent, but most people would say it's a mutli-headed dragon). Is it wrong to subcategorize dragons based on the image? That's how we categorize things here. We go by the image, not the description. The blazon may say dragon, but by sub-categorizing them is not saying they aren't dragons, it's just saying that particular image contains this specific type of dragon. Rocket000 (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If the CoA is not specialy English, you may not use this category, even if it seem be this sort of Dragon. In minimum you use both. --Ssire (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not forget what is said here: "Category names should generally be in English" and "The general rule is always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those." In my opinion, since category names are in English, coats of arms should be categorized according to the rules of English heraldry. Trying to mix English, French, German... heraldic principles will make the category useless, not only for the people who are used to English heraldry, but to everyone. BrightRaven (talk) 23:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't do both. That would be a huge violation of COM:OVERCAT. I don't know why we should treat non-English CoA differently when using English terms for both... we can't mean one thing for some CoAs and another for others when it's the same word. I don't mean to argue; I wish to find a solution before working anymore in this area. Rocket000 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I can agree using En: for international use, but it not acceptable impose En:heraldry. We may use only what is common in all heraldry -not what is specific in En:heraldry or Fr:heraldry. If we don't, this means that english is not international, but imperialist. --Ssire (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Let's keep the debate on a practictal level. When you try to categorize files on Common, the basic problem you encounter is: what sub-categories can I create to sort all these files in a logical way? You say we can only create sub-categories with concepts that exist in all heraldry. This will limit our possibilities and this will lead to overpopulated categories. Moreover, it is impossible for anyone to know what concepts exist in all heraldry, because this would imply to know the details of heraldry of all countries. If we want to have a usable, efficient category system for coats of arms, the only way is to follow the principles of English heraldry. Explanations about the other heraldic systems should only appears as comment, like this. BrightRaven (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Je continue en français, ça devient trop dur pour moi. Restons pratique soit. Si je cherche un blason blasonné "Dragon" comment je peux deviner qu'il se cache dans un sous-groupe "Wyvern", sauf à étudier l'héraldique anglaise ? A quoi servent les catégories ? à se faire plaisir en créant des sous-groupes ou en facilitant la recherche ? Pourquoi les anglophones ne devraient pas faire d'efforts pour classer en tenant compte des particularités de chacun - alors que les autres devrait faire l'effort de savoir comment l'héraldique anglaise gère sa cuisine ? je maintiens: imposer l'héraldique anglaise est une attitude impérialiste, parce qu'il est assez simple d'en rester à ce qui est commun. --Ssire (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
You can simply add a note in Category:Dragons in heraldry like: "For dragons with two legs, please check into Category:Wyverns in heraldry." (I think this kind of notes will be as much useful for native English-speakers as for other people, because most English-speakers probably do not know that in heraldry dragons with two legs are called wyverns.) We do not create sub-cats just for fun: it is just a way to make categories more usable. Categories with 100+ files are poorly usable. BrightRaven (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Descriptions like those are very useful. And thanks for understanding what I'm trying to do with subcategorization. @Ssire: Please feel free to continue in whichever language you feel comfortable with. I know how to use online translators. :) Rocket000 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Normalisation des couleurs / Colors normalization[edit]

Bonjour/Hello,

Français : Un incident a réouvert la question des couleurs. Sur la wikipédia francophone, il existe une convention (fr:Projet:Blasons/Création), il en existe une autre sur la wikipédia germanophone (fr:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Wappen/Neuzeichnen). Serait-il possible d’unifier ces recommandations afin de faciliter la vie de tout le monde ?
English: An incident has reopened the question of colors. On the French-speaking Wikipedia, there is an agreement (fr:Projet:Blasons/Création), there is another on the German-speaking wikipedia (en:Wikipedia:Wappen WikiProjekt/Neuzeichnen). Would it be possible to unify these recommendations in order to make life easier for everyone?

Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 10:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Je suis pour l'harmonisation à l'intérieur d'une zone héraldique, mais contre une harmonisation générale. L'héraldique est certes tres largement universelle, mais elle a ses patois. Respectons les, sinon on va aussi à l'uniformisation des formes de l'écu et ainsi de suite. De toutes façons je vois mal que ça puisse se faire, si on tient compte (et pourquoi ne pas en tenir compte) de l'héraldique canadienne et l'héraldique sud-américaine....--Ssire (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Roughly translated:
I'm for harmonization within an area heraldry, but against a general harmonization. Heraldry is certainly very largely universal, but it has its dialect. Respect them, otherwise we will also standardize the forms of the shield and so on. Anyway I do not see that it can be done, if we take into account (and why not take into account) of Canadian heraldry heraldry and South American
Français : Dans mon esprit, il ne s’agit pas du tout d’une uniformisation mais plutôt d’une clarification et un partage d’information : où utiliser quelle couleur. Ainsi si un français veut dessiner un blason belge, canadien, etc. il saura quelles couleurs utiliser (sans avoir à redemander à chaque fois). Il s'agit aussi de rassembler, discuter et entériner les recommandations existantes.
English: In my mind, this is not a uniformizaion but rather a clarification and information sharing : where to use which color. So if one wants to draw a French coat of arms of Belgium, Canada, etc. he will know what colors to use (without having to reasking each time). It is also to gather, discuss and endorse the existing recommendations.
Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 14:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Ce qui est effectivement tout à fait autre chose. Encore qu'il soit discutable de dessiner "germanique" un blason germanique destiné à garnir un armorial sur le wiki FR: ça reviendrai aussi à les blasonner dans la langue d'origine. C'est à comparer avec des images comme File:Blason à dessiner.svg qui ne peuvent pas se passer de File:Stemma da disegnare.svg Cdlt --Ssire (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Traits dans les dessin de blasons[edit]

Je n'ai pas trouvé (pour l'instant) de texte définissant de quelle couleur doit être le tait de séparation des zônes colorée. Toutefois on peut se déterminer par raisonnement.
il y a deux cas:
  1. Le trait entoure une figure (pièce ou meuble) et dans ce cas on peut argumenter pour une couleur variante de la couleur de la figure (Sinople foncé pour sinople, or foncé pour or, etc) ce qui remet en cause le principe de la couleur symbole.
  2. le trait est une frontière dans une partition. Quelle couleur donner pour un parti sinople/argent ? tranché gueules/or ? etc...
faute de texte, il suffit de regarder les représetations historiques en couleurs (tapisseries, armoriaux, etc) le constat général est: soit pas de ligne de séparation, soit une ligne d'un noir neutre, non assimilable au sable. --Ssire (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Argument suplémentaire. Certaines figures sont dites "ombre" parce que cosidérée comme transparentes ou comme de même couleur que le champ, donc on ne voit qu'un coutour, dessiné au trait. De quelle couleur ce trait ? On voit bien ici la nécessité d'une convention unique pour les traits de délimitation. --Ssire (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Je viens de trouver des références qui ne sont pas directes, mais qui donnent de bonnes indications. Il s'agit de la définition de "ombré" Un cas de ombré est utilisé pour des objets à plusieurs faces, dont les côtés opposés au jour sont d'un émail différent pour marquer l'ombre. Ce n'est pas le cas qui nous interresse, mais celui ci:
  • Se dit des figures qui sont ombrées ou tracées de noir, pour les mieux distinguer. (P. Menestrier Nouvelle Méthode raisonnée du Blason ou de l'Art héraldique.)
  • Se dit des figures relevées de noir pour les mieux distinguer (Jouffroy d'Eschavannes Traité complet de la Science du Blason)
  • J'en ai d'autre mais qui ne font que confirmer ceux là.
Qu'en deduire ? noter l'emploi de noir et non pas de sable ( de tels auteurs ne font pas pour rien la différence.) Le noir est une couleur hors palette pour le traçage. Je ne developpe pas plus: j'attend maintenant que quelqu'un source le fait qu'on marque les tracés en diverses couleurs, selon ce qui est délimité....--Ssire (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Pour moi cela suffit pour le moment (éventuellement, tu pourrais indiquer cela dans l’article de la Wikipédia correspondant). Merci de tes recherches. Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 09:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Clés en sautoir et clés de Saint-Pierre / Keys saltirewise and keys of Saint Peter[edit]

Salut / Hello !

Français : Il existe sur Commons une catégorie Keys of Saint Peter in heraldry qui regroupe l'ensemble des blasons possédant des clés passés en sautoir, quelque soit leurs couleurs. Nous nous demandions toutefois si cette catégorisation n'était pas abusive. Les clés dites « de Saint-Pierre » sont en effet des clés d'or et d'argent passés en sautoir, souvent liées. Ne serait-il pas opportun de créer plutôt une catégorie « Clés passés en sautoir », où l'on pourrait alors placer la sous-catégorie « Clés de Saint-Pierre » ne contenant que les fichiers appropriés  ?


English: We can find on Commons the category Keys of Saint Peter in heraldry, where all coats of arms with two keys saltirewise are categorized, no matter the colors. However, we have been wondering if this categorisation isn't improper. The « keys of Saint Peter » are actually two keys saltirewise, or and argent, which are often bound. Should we not rather create a category « keys saltirewise », where we would create the subcategory « keys of Saint Peter », which would only contain the corrects files ?

Cordialement, --Bvs-aca (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Devant le résultat des débuts de recherche de Ssire, j'ai commencé le remaniement de ces catégories. Volontairement, ce que j'ai fais peut facilement être défait dans le cas où la communauté s'opposerait à cette modification.
Cordialement,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Grand désordre des catégories[edit]

Bonjour à tous !

J'ai été amené récemment à faire quelques catégorisations de blasons (je n'en avais guère fait depuis les grands travaux de rénovation des catégories héraldiques de Commons), et j'ai été assez impressionné par la difficulté que représente une catégorisation précise et efficace. Je vais essayer d'expliquer les points qui m'ont gênés, mais c'est un peu difficile, donc si je ne me suis pas fait comprendre, n'hésitez pas à me le dire clairement Smile.

  • Exemples : Stars in heraldry ou Crescents in heraldry. Pour ces catégories, on trouve aussi des sous-catégories qui permettent d'indiquer le nombre de rayons de l'étoile (Stars by number of rays) ou le nombre de croissants sur le blason (Shields by number of crescents). Comment sait-on si l'on doit catégoriser le blason directement dans la catégorie mère ou plutôt dans la catégorie, fille, de dénombrement ? Le problème vient surtout du fait, je pense, que les sous-catégories de dénombrement (Four rays, Five rays, … catégories à renommer avec « in heraldry » d'ailleurs) se situent elles-même dans des sous-catégories (Stars by number of rays). On a l'impression que ces sous-catégories ne sont là que pour apporter un supplément à la catégorie principale (Stars in heraldry), et donc que la catégorisation n'y ait pas obligatoire ! La règle de la catégorie la plus précise et la plus immédiate ne permet guère de trancher l'indécision, indécision renforcée par le nombre impressionnant de blasons qui se situent encore dans la catégorie principale !
    Ma suggestion est de supprimer ces sous-catégories-mères de dénombrement (Stars by number of rays) et d'intégrer directement les véritables sous-catégories de dénombrement (Four rays, Five rays, …) dans la catégorie principale (Stars in heraldry), en ajoutant au passage le modèle {{Categorise}}.
  • Exemples : Party per fess shields ou Party per pale shields. On trouve dans ces catégories une pléthore assez pitoresque de sous-catégories du type Party per fess gules and or ou Party per fess argent and gules, qui indique en plus clairement :
    English: This category is only for representations of coat of arms whose blazon is exactly "Party per fess gules and or"
    Français : Cette catégorie est réservée aux blasons dont le blasonnement est exactement "Coupé de gueules et d'or"
    Hormis semé la confusion, quel est leur intérêt ? Ces catégories, par nature, ne contiendront jamais plus d'un blason (allez, tout au plus une dizaine, avec les déclinaisons matricielles et vectorielles).
    Ma suggestion est soit de supprimer ces sous-catégories, soit d'y autoriser l'ensemble des blasons (coupé de gueules et d'or) même s'ils ne se limitent pas exactement à cette coupe (des blasons comme celui-ci, celui-ci, celui-ci ou celui-ci y serait alors autorisés).

Qu'en pensez-vous ?
Cordialement,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour,
Je découvre tardivement ce message. As-t-il donné suite à quelque chose ?
Je rapelle que le but d'une catégorie est d'être le plus précise et fine possible afin de contenir un nombre d'éléments suffisamment faible pour que ladite catégorie soit pertinent, utile et utilisable.
Donc pour répondre à ta question, on doit toujours mettre les fichiers dans les catégries les plus basses (les filles).
D'accord avec ta suggestion de supprimer les catégories intermédiaires (qui ne me pose personnellement pas de problème mais qui complique un peu la compréhension). Pour info, elles ont été crées pour éviter de trop encombrer la catégorie mère. Sinon, je pense créer des catégories intégrants ces deux éléments de catégorisation (eg. 2 five rays in heraldry) car les catégories 1 et 2 star(s) in heraldry contiennent trop d'élements.
Pour le deuxième point, regardes les Category:Coats of arms by blazon, elles contiennent souvent plus d'une dizaine de fichiers (et parfois même 64 pour Category:Gules a cross argent). Je ne vois pas pourquoi par nature, elle ne contiendrait qu'un fichier... (intuitivement, je pense plutôt le contraire, un blason peut donner naturellement lieu à plusieurs représentations).
Je verrais donc une troisième solution : garder une catégorie exactement et créer en plus une catégorie pas exactement (mais je vois mal comment les nommer, suggestions bienvenues)
Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 11:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Catégorie "Attributed arms"[edit]

Cette catégorie correspond à ce qui en français se dit "armes imaginaires" en allemand "imaginären Wappenarten" je suppose selon le Wiki korrespondant, et "Attributed arms" mais dites aussi "imaginary arms" selon le en:Wiki.

Ces blasons sont ainsi nommés, parce que

  1. ils n'ont jamais été portés dans la réalité,
  2. ont été créé à l'insu du porteur, soit parceque ce porteur était déjà mort, soit parceque le porteur est lui même imaginaire.

La notion d'époque est non liée à cette appelation, des armes imaginaires se créent encore de nos jour, avec même une certaine recrudescence.
En ce sens le blason de Clochemerle (ville imginaire) File:Blason ville fr Clochemerle-en-Beaujolais.svg‎ ne peut être lui aussi qu'imaginaire. Pour cette raison je demande de faire cesser le denie qu'oppose AnonMoos à cette catégorisation. Il lui oppose une vision "humoristique" qui montre simplement son ignorance du roman, car le blason n'est qu'un descriptif du thème principal. --Ssire (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Je voudrais ajouter ceci: le roman très célèbre et populaire en France, peut, sans honte, ne pas être connu hors francophonie. Mais alors il faut se garder de jugement sans s'informer. La "pissotière" de Clochemerle est érigée comme monument dans la commune de Vaux en Beaujolais (qui se dit être la commune ayant inspiré le roman) [voir ici]. La category "humur" est donc déplacée (ce n'est pas le blason qui est humoristique, c'est le roman) Plus adapté serait même: "category monuments in heraldry". --Ssire (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, User:Ssire seems to be obsessed with assigning some kind of great historical significance to the pseudo-coat-of-arms depicted in image File:Blason ville fr Clochemerle-en-Beaujolais.svg which it simply does not possess. As can be seen in article en:Attributed arms, such heraldry is a highly-specific historical phenomenon, consisting of attributing coats of arms to historical figures who lived before the rise of European heraldic conventions in the 12th century, and also to certain legendary, literary, and Biblical figures. The main heyday of attributed arms was the 15th century, and it was almost over after the 16th century. Attributed arms of the late medieval / renaissance period could be highly fanciful, but they were NOT jokes.

By contrast, File:Blason ville fr Clochemerle-en-Beaujolais.svg is a pure joke (though a rather poor-quality and unfunny one) from a 1934 book, and has absolutely nothing relevant in common with the other images in Category:Attributed arms which would lead it to be legitimately classified there. "Imaginary arms" which are not "attributed arms" (in the specific accepted meaning of that term), belong in Category:Special or fictional coats of arms (or a relevant subcategory thereof), but NOT in Category:Attributed arms... -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

La vision de AnonMoos est SA vision et n'a aucune raison valde de prévaloir: le en:wiki donne "Attributed arms"équivalent à "imaginary arms". si ses reverts allait vers Category:Special or fictional coats of arms, il y aurait peut-être manière à negocier, en renomant "attributed arms" en quelquechose qui le limite au Moyen-Âge, ce qui n'est pas le cas. Quant à son estimation de "pure joke (though a rather poor-quality and unfunny one)" c'est une estimation personnelle tout à fait contestable, le blason ne comportant strictement aucun "joke": il présente le monument "pissotière" visible dans la commune de Vaux en Beaujolais avec cloche et Merle, ce qui ne constitue pas un quelconque "joke" mais le principe des armes parlantes, présents sur d'innombrables blasons. --Ssire (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Il semble important aussi de souligner que cette appellation dans le en:Attributed arms se veut en référence à Michel Pastoureau (Français !) et que celui-ci délimite bien son étude au Moyen-Âge: les armes imaginaires au Moyen-Âge, ce qui laisse entendre, qu'il y en a eu d'autre à d'autres époques. Il me parrait plus judicieux de se référer à l'article fr:Héraldique imaginaire qui embrasse la notion d'une manière plus juste. --Ssire (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Encore un autre élément à l'appui de mes affirmations: Michel Pastoureau lui même dans son ouvrage "figures de l'héraldique" ISBN 2-07-053365-4 page 105 présente les armes imaginaires des "Rastignacs" et celles des "Rubemprés" qui sont des personnages de fiction de la "Comedie humaine" de Honoré de Balzac. Ses deux personnages n'entrent dans aucune catégorie decrite ci-dessus par AnonMoos, et c'est normal: on est loin du Moyen-Âge - ce qui ne contredit pas la classification faite par Pastoureau pour définir ce qu'étaient les blasons imaginaires de l'époque, mais ce n'était pas limititatif, ça ne concernait que le cadre de son étude qui s'intitule sans ambiguité: L'Art de l'héraldique au Moyen Âge. C'est ce qui a dû échapper à AnonMoos. --Ssire (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Dude, the somewhat failed modern attempt at humor in your one precious image has absolutely nothing whatever relevant to do with the very specific and limited historical phenomenon of en:Attributed arms, and any attempt to pretend otherwise is pure nonsense of the most feeble type. The semi-lame joke does seem to have something to do with "canting" arms, but "canting arms" have no particular direct relevance or meaningful connection with attributed arms. If you want to establish a Category:Canting arms, then the image would fit perfectly into that category -- unlike Category:Attributed_arms. AnonMoos (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Ce que je crois comprendre de ce qui se trouve ci-dessus, montre bien que AnonMoos n'y connait pas grand chose à l'héraldique: armes imaginaires et armes parlantes sont deux caractéristiques complètement disjointes non contradictoires, or il cherche à les présenter comme alternative l'une de l'autre. Si la catégorie "armes parlantes" existe, oui le blason de clochemerle y a sa place, mais ça n'enlève en rien que c'est aussi un imaginaire. L'aspect limitatif "the very specific and limited historical phenomenon of en:Attributed arms est une limitation douteuse du phénomème par les rédacteurs de l'article eux même (dont AnonMoos) et qui ne trouve pas sa justification dans leurs sources, qui sont principalement Pastoureau, et voir ci dessus la preuve que cette limitation est injustifiée. --Ssire (talk) 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
It's nice to see you trying to deal with some facts for the first time (as opposed to ignoring them, which you mostly did previously), but unfortunately for you, my role in editing en:Attributed arms has been quite minor (mainly confined to inserting the word "seax", and tweaking the language about the "Shield of the Trinity") -- and the people who actually wrote the article had no hesitations about excluding Tolkien heraldry, Discworld heraldry, and Harry Potter heraldry. The French Wikipedia article fr:Héraldique imaginaire was exactly the same before you started messing with it: http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=H%C3%A9raldique_imaginaire&oldid=57268173 -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Là je ne peux pas répondre, je n'ai rien compris. Sauf peut-être la dernière phrase: l'article FR est exactement le même qu'avant que je commence mes messages, c'est ça ? Si oui, alors mon pauvre AnonMoos, il faut consulter d'urgence un ophtalmo. L'article s'est enrichi de la vision non limitative de la notion d'armes imaginaires à l'histoire entière de l'héraldique. Les termes utilisés au début n'ont effectivement pas été changé, mais pour une raison simple: ils ne sont pas limitatifs en soi contrairement à l'article EN, qui semble limiter à l'affectation à des personnages se sitant à des époques pré-heraldique - ce qui est une erreur car les sources invoquées ne disent absoluement pas ça, ni The Complete Book of Heraldry by Stephen Slater ni surtout Pastoureau qui qualifie d'armes imaginaires des créations du XIXème. --Ssire (talk) 13:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I wonder why it is that you know better than everybody else in the world?? Even the Pope only claims to be infallible in ex cathedra pronouncements, not everything he says. As Benjamin Franklin once said, But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right"--Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison. Too bad that you won't get too far on Wikipedia with an unfortunate attitude like that... AnonMoos (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
J'en ai autant pour ton compte, mon vieux ! Je ne prétends pas avoir raison: je regarde les sources. Personne ne limite au Moyen-Âge, sauf toi. Et surtout pas Pastoureau (a qui on fait beaucoup référence) qui signale comme Armes imaginaires des production du XIXéme. Qui c'est qui joue au Pape ? --Ssire (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

We can create a new category for coats of arms described in fiction. Nous pouvons créer une nouvelle catégorie pour les armoiries décrites dans la fiction. Adelbrecht (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Adelbrecht -- We already have such a category: it's called Category:Special or fictional coats of arms, and Tolkien and Harry Potter and Discworld and Frank Herbert's Dune all find their place there... AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
J'ai déjà proposé ça: diviser en deux: "medieval attributed arms" / "post-medieval attributed arms" ou "primitive attributed arms" / "modern attributed arms" (ou autre chose du genre). Mais je tiens à ce que le même terme (attributed ou imaginery) qualifie les deux, car ils ressortent du même esprit. Mais je veux bien distinguer selon les époques, car effectivement ils ont leurs spécifités. --Ssire (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
That's very unfortunate, since everybody agrees that attributed heraldry in the accepted meaning of the term spilled over into the Renaissance (as late as the 17th century in some cases). How about you stop trying to redefine terms to mean something other than their established accepted meanings? That would solve the problem immediately! AnonMoos (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Il ne me semble pas que ce soit moi qui redéfinisse les termes selon le sens admis. "Armes imaginaires" est dues à Pastoureau. Il ne l'utilise pas seulement pour le moyen age, mais aussi pour les créations romantiques de Balzac. Qui limite le sens ? pas moi !Qui estime "le established accepted meaning ? C'est selon ta vision, pas celle de Pastoureau en tous cas. Mais il y a une possibilité de camper sur nos positions avec les catégories que j'ai proposé: primitive et moderne, ou expressions équivalentes. --Ssire (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Français : Je viens de bloquer le fichier File:Blason ville fr Clochemerle-en-Beaujolais.svg pour une semaine (pour le moment). Merci d’arrêter immédiatement votre guerre d’édition sous peine de blocage de vos comptes ! De plus, vous avez mis le bordel dans l'organisation de ces catégories. Merci de collaborrez ensemble pour remettre cela d'apomb. Ssire : qu'est-ce qui ne va pas avec Category:Fictional coats of arms from modern literature, la catégorie me semble un très bon compromis (neutre, objectif, et descriptif).
English: I just block the file File:Blason ville fr Clochemerle-en-Beaujolais.svg for a week (for the moment). Thank you to immediately stop your edit war or I’ll block your accounts! In addition, you put the mess in the categories organization. Thank you for all collaborates as to put this right. Ssire: What's wrong with Category:Fictional coats of arms from modern literature, the category seems a good compromise to me (neutral, objective, and descriptive).

Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 19:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Salut. ça nest pas un bon compromis dans la mesure ça été mis comme alternative à "attributed arms" donc en fait à refuser d'intégrer ces armes dans cette catégories (ce quelles sont: sources disponibles). Or si je mets cette catégorie sous catégorie de attributed arms, ça va etre reverté, AnonMoos veut conserver jalousement le terme pour sa vision limitative qui est celle de l'article anglais (à tort à mon avi, car ça ne correspond pas à mes docs en anglais, mais je m'abstients d'intervenir là mon niveau de langue me l'interdit) En tous cas va voir là: tu verras qu'il ne s'agit pas que de mon seul avis, et il y a de nombreuses référence. fr:Discussion Projet:Blasons#Armes imaginaires et categorie "attributed Arms" sur Commons.. Note: il n'y a pas que le fichier Clochemerle qui pose problème, c'est tous les ajout que j'ai fait quand j'ai entrepris l'enrichissement de l'article fr:Héraldique imaginaire où AnonMoos est aussi venu mettre le souk pour imposer ses vues. Je maintiens cet article avec Le scripteur en toute harmonie et sans aucune critique des autres participants du projet, ce qui indique bien qu'il ne s'agit pas de MA vision. Si tu arrives à faire admettre que Category:Fictional coats of arms from modern literature soit une sous catégorie de attributed arms, alors d'accord. If faut pouvoir aboutir à ces blasons en cherchant à partir de attributed arms. Cdlt. --Ssire (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Après reflexion, le seul compromis envisageable est de créer une catégorie "Armes imaginaire" en accord avec la conception française, c'est à dire incluant les "attributed arms" les "modern attributed Arms" ainsi que les diverses créations des oeuvres de fiction (litterature, mais aussi cinéma, etc) Ce n'est pas du tout redondant avec le fourre tout actuel Special or fictional coats of arms parce que par exemple tous les blasons tels que File:Blason Projet-Blasons-2.svg ne sont pas des blasons imaginaires (ils sont "self-clamed") ou comme File:Blaz-kvaron.png qui sont "pédagogique" et attribué à personne. Quant à la création de AnonMoos elle est sans doutes (neutre, objective, et descriptive) mais non liée à la question. Si une catégorie doit obligatoirement être (neutre, objective, et descriptive), il faut supprimer "attributed arms" qui n'est pas définie objectivement actuellement, la limitation "from" M-A et renaissance comportant de très nombreux contre-exemples. Par contre une définition très claire de "Armes imaginaires" par "Non-self-claimed arms" rend viable une telle catégorie. Je ne pense pas pouvoir être plus conciliant. --Ssire (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
What seems to be wrong with Category:Fictional coats of arms from modern literature from Ssire's point of view, is that if images are categorized using it, then Clochemerdure can no longer be side-by-side in the same category with 15th-century armorial manuscripts of the coats of arms assigned to Julius Caesar and King Arthur (something which seems to be SSire's highest goal). AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Pour un arbitrage objectif de "attributed arms"[edit]

Je souhaiterai un arbitrage objectif de la chose, le compomis "a l'amiable" avec AnonMoos ne me semblant ni possible, ni souhaitable. En effet il s'agit d'une notion qui doit depasser les positions personnelles de deux individus. AnonMoos m'a souvent accusé de vouloir représenter la "vision française" alors que je ne représentais que celle de Ssire. Je pourais lui retourner le compliment. Mais élevons le debat. Voici une citation de Pastoureau (français !) qui d'ailleurs a influencé tous ceux qui ont étudié les armes imaginaires après lui, y compris les Britaniques. (Mis en relief par moi, sur les points de désacord. Traduction anglaise selon mes pauvres moyens)
  • Français : armoiries imaginaires. On qualifie ainsi les armories attribuées à des personnages de fiction, à des héros littéraires, à des créatures mythologiques, à des personnifications (vices et vertus, par exemple), ou bien à des personnages historiques ayant vécu avant la naissance de l'héraldique mais que l'imagination mediévale (ou moderne) a rétroactivement dotés d'armoiries. Le répertoire en est très étendu puisque les personnes divines elles-mêmes ont fini par en recevoir. […]. En fait, partout en Occident, mais plus encore dans les pays germaniques au XV et XVI ème siècles, tout, absolument tout peut être doté d'armoiries, tant est grande la place qu'occupe l'héraldique dans la vie matériele, culturelle et symbolique.
  • English: "imaginery (coats of) arms".They qualify the online coat of arms so figures of invention to literary heroes, to mythological living beings in personifications (vices and virtues, for instance) or to historical figures having lived before birth of heraldic but what medieval (or modern) imagination retroactively endowed of COA. The directory is very sprawling there since the divine persons ended up themselves accepting from it. In fact, everywhere in Occident, but more still in the germanic countries in XV and XVIth centuries, everything, absolutely everything can be endowed of COA,   such an amount of is large the place which the heraldic one occupies in material, cultural and symbolic life.
La limitation que veut imposer AnonMoos est peut être celle de la conception britannique,- ce dont je doute, d'ailleurs, mais ça, ça n'est pas mon problème - en tous cas, le texte ci dessus montre clairement que ce n'est pas la conception Ssire que je défends.
Je réitère donc ma proposition de
  • Soit dévérouiller la restriction qu'impose AnonMoos
  • Soit créer une catégorie "Imaginary Arms" selon la conception Pastoureau, laquelle comprendra des sous catégories, par genre, par époque ou autre, et donc évidement "attributed arms" avec son actuelle limitation.
--Ssire (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


In adding in the word "moderne", Pastoureau no doubt meant to acknowledge that the general phenomenon of imaginative heraldry, in a broad sense, still continues to exist today. However, that doesn't change the fact that "classic" attributed heraldry was a particular historical phenomenon with special characteristics -- and Pastoureau even gives us a summary of the main heyday of "classic" attributed heraldry: dans les pays germaniques au XV et XVIème siècles. Furthermore, "classic" attributed heraldry was basically about assigning arms to historical figures or pre-existing fictional characters (most of whom were thought of as historical figures); it was NOT about an author creating a character or location, and then also inventing a coat of arms for the character or location which he has just created (something which happened very rarely, or not at all, dans les pays germaniques au XV et XVIème siècles). Therefore there's no reason at all why modern literary creations and "classic" attributed heraldry should be jammed indiscriminately into one single category. And if the "modern attributed arms" category serves a purpose, it would be for arms created in the modern period which do not fall under "Fictional arms from modern literature" (the coat of arms for Foch being a perfect example). AnonMoos (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
L'argumentation principale de AnonMoos repose toujours sur des certiudes: "no doubt" plutôt que des référence. Si effectivement Pastoureau ne dit rien sur la création contemporaine, il ne dit pas non plus qu'elle est à exclure. Or sur la logique de sa définition elle est potentiellement possinble.
En ce qui concerne les créations litteraires, Pastoureau cite nommément Arioste, Le Tasse, Sheakspeare, Rabelais, Cervantes et Balzac (p198-197 op cit), s'il ne s'étend pas, c'est que son étude se limite au M-Â, et que ça n'alimente que le préambule, montrant bien par là, que l'héraldique imaginaire ne se limite pas à cette période. Et là encore, AnonMoos veut imposer un dictat selon sa conception personelle: "Modern attributed Arms" soit, mais à condition de ne pas y inclure ces créations. Avec quelle argumentation, autre "parceque moi-même, AnonMoos" défenseur incontestable de la vérité héraldique, pense que ça ne doit pas être comme ça !" justifie-t-il son dictat ? Pastoureau cite 6 auteurs "inventing a coat of arms for the character or location which he has just created" mais AnonMoos se pense sans doutes plus compétent que Pastoureau. --Ssire (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Si la catégorie "modern attributed arms" (qui mon fait, je le rapelle, donc on peut me laisser le bénéfice de définir ce quelle recouvre) ne doit plus être vérouillée par les prétentions injustifiées de AnonMoos, le "confiturage" avec les "classic" n'est pas indispensable (bien que il existe une raison pour le faire, toutes deux concernant les "not self-clamed", ce qui n'est pas le cas de tout ce qui se trouve dans la catégorie-mère actuelle --Ssire (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Shakespeare made puns on heraldic technical terminology, but did not invent full usable coats of arms for characters that he himself had created (see http://www.heraldica.org/topics/shakespeare.htm ). And Balzac falls solidly outside the period of classic attributed heraldry. It's nice for Pastoureau if he wants to be expansive in a vague general passage, but that doesn't change the fact that classic attributed heraldry was a particular historical phenomenon with special characteristics... AnonMoos (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Je n'ai pas contesté qu'on puisse distinguer deux périodes et si tu emploies "classic attributed arms" en parallele avec "modern attributed arms", (et OK pour Balzac dans cette catégorie) on va être d'accord ! --Ssire (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- En ce qui concerne Shakespeare, ton lien prouve au contraire que celui ci a bel et bien attribué, comme Balzac, des armes à ses personnages. Le fait qu'il les décrive insuffisemment pour pouvoir les dessiner ne change pas le principe ! --Ssire (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The Stafford "Bear and ragged staff" was historical, and not at all imaginary. Other than that, there's a mention of one character's coat of arms as having twelve white fleurs-de-lis (in order to serve as the basis of puns and other verbal wit), but not a specification of a full coat of arms. Everything else in Shakespeare is quite vague, and either metaphorical or used as a basis for puns/word-play (again, without a concrete specification useful for creating a heraldic depiction). I would call these odds and ends of heraldry-related literary conceits or humor, but not "attributed arms" in any meaningful sense. In any case, if there can be no useful pictures of them, then they're irrelevant to Wikimedia Commons.
I thought that "Category:Modern attributed arms" would be a good place for such things as the Marshal Foch coat of arms, but if it has to be deleted in order to keep the peace, I'm not sure I care too deeply... AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Je n'ai à aucum moment demandé que soit effacé une quelconque catégorie. Je veux simplement que les blasons tels que ceux de de Balzac puisse trouver une place dans une catégorie comportant les mots "attributed arms" accompagné de quelque chose à définir (par exemple "in modern litterature"), car se sont des "attributed arms" au moins selon la conception française (je crois l'avoir suffisemment établit) et sans risquer une nouvelle guéguère.--Ssire (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

de:Verwechselte Farben[edit]

Verwechselte Farben „enchanged colours“

could you help me to translate and categorize that kind of tincture? --W!B: (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In italiano: partito d'argento e di rosso, allo scaglione alzato ondato dell'uno all'altro, accompagnato da due losanghe crociate dell'uno nell'altro poste in capo. --Massimop (talk) 21:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I think Category:Counterchanged in heraldry is what you are looking for. A strange thing about that category is that is has two "translation tables" with two slightly different translations for some languages. /Ö 13:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Dand cet exemple le chevron est countercharged les fusées (?) sont conterchanged. Je ne sais pas si l'héraldique germanique fait la différence. --Ssire (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


En fait cette catégorie melange conterchanged et countercharged (avec inversion, j'ai rectifié)
FR Blason ville fr Chasné-sur-Illet (Ille-et-Vilaine).svg de l'un à l'autre (=countercharged), est différent de Blason famille Henry de Kerprast.svg de l'un en l'autre (= counterchanged)

--Ssire (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

en:Countercharge says it is a misspelling of "counterchange", and links to en:Tincture (heraldry)#Counterchanging and countercolouring. If I understand correct, that article says Blason ville fr Chasné-sur-Illet (Ille-et-Vilaine).svg is counterchanged, and Blason famille Henry de Kerprast.svg is countercoloured. /Ö 17:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe... Il m'est assez indifférent de savoir comment l'héraldique GB distingue les deux ( dans "A COMPLETE GUIDE TO HERALDRY BY ARTHUR CHARLES FOX-DAVIES" Counterchanged est utilisé indiferemment et "coutercoloured" n'est pas cité une seule fois.) Bon ! du moment qu'on sépare ! --Ssire (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
English: Correct me if I’m wrong :
In France (and probably in French) there is 2 different things : de l'un à l'autre & de l'un en l'autre (or de l'un dans l'autre). Same thing in Italian : dell'uno all'altro & dell'uno nell'altro.
In English, there is (at least) 3 words : conterchanged, countercharged, & coutercoloured. But it’s unclear to match words with meanings.
It seems that Illustrated atlas of French and English heraldic terms is outdated.
Français : Corrigez-moi si je me trompe :
En France (et probablement en français) il y a 2 choses différentes : de l'un à l'autre & de l'un en l'autre (or de l'un dans l'autre). Même chose en italién : dell'uno all'altro & dell'uno nell'altro.
En anglais, il y a (au moins) 3 mots : conterchanged, countercharged, & coutercoloured. Mais le lien entre les mots et leur acception est peu clair.
Il semble que Illustrated atlas of French and English heraldic terms ne soit pas à jour.
Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 10:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • L'espagnol (del uno en el otro; del uno al otro) et le Nederlandais (wedersijds en beurtelings van kleur verwisselend ; van kleur verwisselend) distinguent également; Apparement pas l'allemand (in verwechselten Farben), Quant au russe je n'ai que sens (un en autre) en traduction. --Ssire (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • le "Glossary of terms used in british héraldry" John H Parker page 90 donne : Conter-changed: signifies that the field consists of metal and colour separated by one of partition [] and that the charges, or parts of charges, placed upon the metal are of the color and vice versa. Counter-colored the same of above. Ne parle pas de counter charged. D'après ce que j'en comprends, s'utilise dans les deux cas. --Ssire (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Synopsys of Heraldry C.N. Elvin p62 :Counterchanged is an intermixture of metal and color, one againts the other. ni counter-colored, ni counter charged. --Ssire (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Introduction of heraldry Hugh Clark: définition non trouvé, mais contient des exemples où est utilisé counterchanged pour les deux cas: p54 (ex 3 plate T) et p45 (ex 13 et 14 plate C) --Ssire (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Considering the "Glossary of terms used in british héraldry" (counterchanged=metal and colour separated by one of partition) and the meaning of the word (countercharged=charged with opposite colours) could be correct this interpretation ?:
  1. counterchanged = de l'un à l'autre / dell'uno all'altro
  2. countercharged = de l'un en l'autre (or de l'un dans l'autre) / dell'uno nell'altro --Massimop (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
D'après le sens, ça me semble OK,
I dont't find "countercharged" in "Glossary of terms used in british héraldry" what number of page ? --Ssire (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "Glossary of terms used in british héraldry" has only of counterchanged (as you told and this glossary uses counterchanged also for dell'uno nell'altro); for countercharged it's only a my interpretation. --Massimop (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

thanks a lot for discussion and respect for the internationality - in fact, in german heraldry its simple, any of of the two/three ist "verwechselte Farben", regardless of symetric pattern or just the tincture - so, maybe we keep the category as it is by now: but I added the two examples given above, leaving no questions.. --W!B: (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: next step heraldic PISA ;): whats that in en/fr? Wappen Assamstadt.svg „In geteiltem und fünfmal von Rot und Silber in verwechselten Farben gespaltenem Schild ein achtspeichiges Rad in verwechselten Farben.“ - my (bad) translation: „party per pale and fivefold party per fess counterchanged an eightspoked wheel counterchanged“
En français: Contrepalé de gueules et d'argent, à une roue de huit rais de l'un à l'autre. --Ssire (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
ah, fr:contrepalé would also be de:verwechselte Farben, thus I suppose we have three different meanings in french
what would be geteilt und fünfmal gespalten in french, so I could add to CoA-description as an template - should we do a third description in Category:Counterchanged in heraldry, or a do not confuse (despite in german we "confuse" it) W!B: (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The blazon of that shield in English is: Party per fess and paly of six Gules and Argent a wheel of eight spokes all counterchanged.
Counterchanged is the generally accepted form in England and Scotland, but countercoloured is sometimes used where the blazon is particularly difficult. Countercharged is incorrect and should never be used in any context in heraldry.
Kiltpin (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Brasão de Galaretta-2.jpg[edit]

Any comment on licensing of this image? I'm not aware of any reason coats of arms should be any different than anything else, so this appears somewhat suspect.--Chaser (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm italian and my english is very poor. Can you explain in better manner which is the problem ? --Massimop (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
According to pt:Alfonso_de_Galarreta, this Bishop was born in 1957 and is still alive. So any copyright has not expired. Is there some other reason this would be public domain? Or is this a copyvio? I guess the coat of arms is no older than Alfonso de Galarreta, but I may be wrong about that.--Chaser (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The coat of arms is obviously old as the nomination to bishop. The problem is: the coat of arms is under copyright ?. The answer is: no isn't, if the Coa is a new design of the Coa established by the Church. If it is the official design it could be under copyright, but this rule seems be not applicable to the ecclesiastic heraldry: see the current use of the Pope's Coa. In many countries the Coa are excluded from copyright because of their use necessary for the identification of towns, families, people and so on. --Massimop (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Cross couped vs. Greek cross[edit]

Could somebody help me out and tell me what's the difference between Category:Crosses couped in heraldry and Category:Greek crosses in heraldry. I am having some difficulties when trying to categorize some CoAs as their Finnish blazon is defining them as Greek cross, but in en-blazon it has been translated to cross couped. --Care (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The greek cross has all the arms of equal lenght (i.e. [file:Blason Gaudiès (Ariège).svg]. Glossary of terms used in heraldry of James Parker tells: a couped cross ... It would also appear that this cross should be always drawn with its arms equal. Where the Complete guide to heraldry of A.C. Fox-Davies shows in fig 165 a cross couped which has the vertical arms some more lenght of the horizontal arms, like the crosses bottony, flory, fleuretté, moline and so on. Also the Encyclopedie of Diderot and D'Alembert shows a croix allaisée (tht is the couped cross) whit different arms at planche III fig. 155. The same in Usi, regole s tili in Araldica of C.A. von Volborth where in italian edition page 21 shows a croce scorciata (i.e. a cross couped) whit different lenght of vertical and horizontal arms (the vertical have the major lenght). So I think that the couped cross should show the same portion of field, at the end of any arm. --Massimop (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I thing that "couped cross" is an honourable ordinary (a normal cross but not reaching edges) while "Greek cross" is only a subordinarie. If the greek cross is the main charge, it look like the couped cross, in this case is better to tell it "couped cross". When there is several crosses, or when the cross is a littel one, we can use "crosslet" instead of "greek cross". This is valid only if the cross is regular. --Ssire (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you both, I believe I got it. It looks like that Finnish heraldic glossary has after all specific terms for both of them even though the difference is minor enough so that in the book I have they have used even the same picture to describe them both. --Care (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd draw a cross couped as an ordinary with each arm shortened by the same amount; this will generally leave them unequal. —Tamfang (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Stars in heraldry[edit]

Stars in heraldry
four rays five rays six rays seven rays eight rays
1 star 1 four rays in heraldry 1 five rays in heraldry 1 six rays in heraldry 1 seven rays in heraldry 1 eight rays in heraldry
2 stars 2 four rays in heraldry 2 five rays in heraldry 2 six rays in heraldry 2 seven rays in heraldry 2 eight rays in heraldry
3 stars 3 four rays in heraldry 3 five rays in heraldry 3 six rays in heraldry 3 seven rays in heraldry 3 eight rays in heraldry
4 stars 4 four rays in heraldry 4 five rays in heraldry 4 six rays in heraldry 4 seven rays in heraldry 4 eight rays in heraldry
5 stars 5 four rays in heraldry 5 five rays in heraldry 5 six rays in heraldry 5 seven rays in heraldry 5 eight rays in heraldry
6 stars 6 four rays in heraldry 6 five rays in heraldry 6 six rays in heraldry 6 seven rays in heraldry 6 eight rays in heraldry
7 stars 7 four rays in heraldry 7 five rays in heraldry 7 six rays in heraldry 7 seven rays in heraldry 7 eight rays in heraldry
8 stars 8 four rays in heraldry 8 five rays in heraldry 8 six rays in heraldry 8 seven rays in heraldry 8 eight rays in heraldry
9 stars 9 four rays in heraldry 9 five rays in heraldry 9 six rays in heraldry 9 seven rays in heraldry 9 eight rays in heraldry
English: Just to inform you that nearly all the stars shields are categorized.
Français : Juste pour vous informer que presque tout les blasons à étoile sont catégorisés.

Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Great work. This type of categorisation is a great idea. It must be mind-numbing to actually trawl through all the images to do it though. Haha. Well done, VIGNERON.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Joli travail, Vigneron ! Je me suis permis d'ajouter ton tableau à la page Stars in heraldry. À ce propos, j'ai une question qui m'empêche de déplacer les images restantes dans la catégorie mère : les étoiles sont-elles comptées de manière globale, c'est-à-dire sur la totalité du blason, ou bien relativement à chaque composante, lorsqu'il est partitionné ? Par exemple, ce blason est-il à classer comme ayant 3 ou 6 étoiles ? J'aurai tendance à dire 6, mais pourquoi alors ce blason-ci est-il compté comme possédant 3 bandes, et non 6 ?
La catégorisation progresse, mais il reste hélas encore bien du travail Smile !
Cordialement,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Stars discussion[edit]

In a quartered (or otherwise partitioned) shield I think the different parts often have their own "meanings" so it makes sense to count the different parts separately. For example here I categorised as both "2 fesses" and "3 fesses" even if there are 10 fesses in the entire coat of arms, but later someone knew the meaning of the 3 fesses and changed the category to "Coats of arms of the House of Croÿ". /Ö 13:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Après réflexion, c'est effectivement la meilleure solution. Le décompte reste aussi simple, et on évite notamment les problèmes d'étoiles trop nombreuses.
Est-ce que quelqu'un pourrait rédiger un texte dans un anglais correct (le mien étant relativement lamentable Smile) pour que l'on puisse expliquer la démarche à suivre ? Je me chargerais de la version française, si personne ne le fait avant moi. On pourra le placer, soit sur les pages des catégories Stars in heraldry, Chevrons in heraldry, Bends in heraldry, … soit sur la page d'accueil du WikiProject. Ou bien même faire les deux à la fois.
Cordialement,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Français : Personnellement, j'ai plutôt eu tendance à me concentrer sur les blasons simples et à éviter les partitions. Notamment parce que je me posais la même question ;) La solution proposée me convient bien. Par contre, je n’ai ni le temps ni les compétences pour faire une traduction propre mais je peux aider si besoin (pour la relecture par exemple).
English: Personnaly, I have done the simplier coats of arms avoiding the partitions. Cos’ I had the same questions. This solution is fine for me. I haven’t the time nor the skills to do a proper translation but I ca help (eg. for the proofreading).
Cdlt, VIGNERON * discut. 17:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Or[edit]

Just to let you know that there is discussion ongoing at Commons:Categories for discussion#Category:Or (heraldry) if or should not be written with capital letter in category names. --Care (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Template to mark problematic coats of arms[edit]

I had proposed some time ago to create a template to mark problematic coats of arms (in particular pictures differing from blazons. I have (finally) created it: Template:Disputed coat of arms. See also the Category:Disputed coats of arms. BrightRaven (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

For CoAs with the blazon in several languages we should probably find a way of clearly and easily marking which the authoritative one is. I know that for some of my uploaded CoAs there are English translations of the blazon which are based on the visual image rather then translated from the Swedish. Thus if the image is updated (or if the translation is based on another visual image) the image may appear at odds with the English blazon (and thus being slapped by the above mentioned template or worse have the image "corrected") whilst still being correct according to the authoritative Swedish blazon. /Lokal_Profil 23:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Centaurs[edit]

Is there a difference between Category:Hipocentaurus coat of arms and Category:Centaurs in heraldry? Should not they be merged? BrightRaven (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Any idea what is the difference between centaur and hipocentaur in general? Even though I am interested in Greek mythology, this is the first time when I heard of hipocentaur. Google didn't find anything, and to me it looks like hipocentaur is just a name variant for regular centaur. --Care (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
En français en tout cas, hippocentaure est clairement un synonyme vieilli de centaure (voir Reverso par exemple), la redirection semble donc tout à fait justifiée.
Cordialement,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Catégorisation des couleurs et des fourrures[edit]

Salut à tous !
Je me demandais comment catégoriser, au niveau des couleurs (Coats of arms by tincture), les blasons qui contiennent des fourrures ou des couleurs secondaires. Ils existent en effet des catégories très précises pour chacune des combinaisons possibles avec les couleurs principales. On a donc aucun problème pour catégoriser ce genre de fichier par exemple. Mais comment alors catégoriser les fichiers avec une fourrure d'hermine, comme celui-ci ? La solution choisi de facto est celle de catégoriser ce genre des fichiers dans les catégories des deux couleurs de la fourrure (c'est le cas pour ce fichier, celui-ci ou encore celui-là, tous catégoriser dans Argent, gules, sable in heraldry, parfois également dans Ermine (fur)). Soit, cela résoudrait le problème des fourrures d'hermines et de vairs. Mais comment faire si le blason continent des couleurs secondaires, comme Orange ?
Personnellement, j'imagine qu'il faudrait placer ce genre d'image à la fois dans la catégorie correspondant à la fourrure ou la couleur secondaire, et dans la catégorie correspondant aux couleurs restantes, une fois la fourrure ou la couleur « négligée ». Mais ceci imposerait de placer, par exemple, ce fichier dans Argent and gules in heraldry et non dans Argent, gules, sable in heraldry, ce qui pourrait choquer ! Je me tourne donc vers le WikiProject pour pouvoir dégager un consensus clair Smile.
Cordialement,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A mon avis ce fichier doit etre categorisé dans la Category:Argent, gules and hermine in heraldry, parce que la couleur sable n'est pas present. Aussi celui-ci devrait etre categorisè dans la Category: Gules and hermine in heraldry. Pour les couleurs sécondaires ils doivent etre categorisé comme tous les autres, sans aucune difference. --Massimop (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
English: Yep, but the problem is that we can't really create a new category for each combination of color or fur. That's why the category Argent, gules and hermine in heraldry doesn't exist at the moment, and will probably never exist. By the way, no matter if you speak english or italian rather than french Smile.
Regards.
Français : Oui, mais le problème est que l'on ne peut pas vraiment créer une nouvelle catégorie pour chaque combinaison de couleur. C'est pourquoi la catégorie Argent, gules and hermine in heraldry n'existe pas pour le moment, et n'existera probablement jamais. Au fait, si tu préfères parler anglais ou italien plutôt que français, ca ne me pose pas de problème Smile.
Cordialement,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Grazie per l'uso dell'italiano. Io credo che questo sistema di categorizzazione sia comunque troppo pesante e scomodo, ma non si può dire che uno stemma va inserito nella categoria argent and sable quando è fatto di solo armellino. Che senso ha trovare lo stemma della Bretagna quando si cercano stemmi con i colori argent and sable? E anche, che senso ha trovare uno stemma di vair quando si cerca nella categoria argent and azure? Ormai sono state fatte decine di categorie con varie combinazioni di colori, perché non fare anche argent, gules and hermine ? Sicuramente ci sono molti stemmi che potrebbero essere inseriti in questa categoria. --Massimop (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Oui, je suis parfaitement d'accord avec toi au début. On pourrait tout à fait créer la catégorie Argent, gules and hermine, mais ce n'est qu'une solution particulière. Les cas du vair et de l'hermine étant en effet assez proche de celui des couleurs principales, il pourrait être envisageable de créer les catégories spécifiques. Mais il existe un très grand nombre de couleurs secondaires, et un nombre encore plus grand de fourrure (vairé de gueules et d'or, …). Il me semble qu'il est totalement impensable de créer une catégorie pour chacune de ces couleurs, et c'est là que réside le problème.
Cordialement,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Sicuramente non si possono fare le categorie per tutti i casi di vaiato o di armellinato, ma li si potrebbe raggruppare nelle due categorie live vair e like hermine. Inoltre si dovrebbero fare le categorie per tutti i colori secondari (tra l'altro le categorie base già ci sono, e le categorie tipo argent, sable and orange sarebbero poche). In generale, però, io penso che questo sistema di categorizzazione sia abbastanza inutile: quando tutti gli stemmi saranno categorizzati, come si farà a trovare uno stemma nella categoria argent, gules, azure and sable che arriverà a contenere migliaia di stemmi ? Ciao --Massimop (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Un'altra considerazione. Parlando delle stelle, si è detto che gli stemmi inquartati (così come tutti quelli composti di molte parti) devono essere categorizzati per ogni campo separatamente (ad esempio: two stars e four stars contemporaneamente). Nel caso dei colori gli inquartati vanno in una categoria che comprende tutti i colori dell'inquartato o vanno in tante categorie separate, una per ogni campo? Ciao --Massimop (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Il est vrai que ces catégories ne tarderont pas à être surchargés. Ne pas catégoriser ces blasons ailleurs que dans Ermine (fur) ou Vair (fur), alors ? Ce serait certes le plus simple, mais cela va à l'encontre des principes de Commons. J'avoue ne plus trop savoir que penser.
En ce qui concerne la prise en compte des partitions, c'est encore un autre problème. Les pièces ou les meubles sont clairement propres à chaque partie, le choix fait semble donc le plus judicieux. En revanche, pour les couleurs, je crois que le but des catégories est différent : il s'agit surtout d'une catégorisation visuelle, en quelque sorte. Mais évidemment, l'autre point de vue est tout aussi légitime, c'est pourquoi il faut se baser sur un consensus, et c'est de facto celui d'une catégorisation en fonction de l'ensemble des couleurs du blason. Le changer serait long et laborieux, mais s'il y a un réel intérêt, pourquoi pas !
Cordialement,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Catégorisation des bandes[edit]

Bonjour !
Dans la catégorie Bends in heraldry, on trouve à la fois une catégorie regroupant les blasons par nombre de bandes (Shields by number of bends) et une catégorie regroupant les cotices (Bendlets in heraldry). Le problème est qu'au bout de quatre bandes sur un même écu, en français au moins en tout cas, les bandes deviennent des cotices. Qu'en est-il en anglais ? La catégorie 5 bends in heraldry a-t-elle un sens ?
Cordialement,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about similar questions with pales and pallets some time ago. The existing categories for 2, 3, and 4 pallets/pales use the word "pale". And since en.wikipedia said the pallet is a thin variant of the pale, I concluded that the name Category:5 pales in heraldry was probably not completely wrong. And if it was not a good choice, hopefully someone who knows better will correct it.
en:Ordinary (heraldry)#Diminutives says "When a coat of arms contains two or more of an ordinary, they are nearly always blazoned (in English) as diminutives of the ordinary" (although without citing a source). So maybe "pallets"/"bendlets" is a better category name when there are more of them. /Ö 19:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Mixing different kinds of categories[edit]

We categorise coats of arms both by who they belong to and by what is shown in the coat of arms. Sometimes these categories are mixed. This often puts coats of arms in categories in which they do not really belong. Is that a good idea? Is it not better to categorise every coat of arms seprately by the elements it includes?
Look at for example Category:Coats of arms of the House of Bernadotte. It is categorised as "Bridges in heraldry" because many of the COAs include the bridge from the original coat of arms of Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte. But some of the Bernadotte COAs does not include the bridge, and are incorrectly categorised. It can get even stranger when the categories are in many levels. No Bernadotte COA is "Semy of bees", but all of them are included in that category through "French empire princely shields". /Ö 19:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should not categorize this way, except if all the files in the category respect the criterion. If it is not the case, I think we should categorize each file separately (even if it takes more time than simply categorizing the parent category). In some cases, maybe we could create categories like Category:Coats of arms of the House of Bernadotte with bridges or Category:Bridges in coats of arms of the House of Bernadotte. Another example is Category:Coats of arms of Sardinia, in which I have withdawn some categories (Category:Argent a cross gules, Category:Moor heads in heraldry, etc.), and created instead Category:Cross of Alcoraz in heraldry, which has a clear definition. BrightRaven (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with that completely. If category does not match with all CoAs, it does not belong there but to individual files. --Care (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think categories such as Category:Coats of arms of the House of Bernadotte with bridges would be useful. It's better to make a clear distinction between what the CoA depicts and whom it represents. For me the two are different trunks of the category tree. I consider it less of a problem to have many files in one category than a category filled with subcategories which are not related to the topic. /Lokal_Profil 23:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I have now fixed at least some of these. --Care (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is still done. For example File:Blason comte fr Alencon.svg was removed from "Semé-de-lis" because (I assume) it is in Category:Coat of arms of the Capetian counts of Alençon in Category:Coats of arms of the House of Valois which is in Category:Semé-de-lis. So Semé-de-lis is supposed to also apply to content in subcategories.
A contrary exmple is Category:Coats of arms of Oise which was added to "Semé-de-lis". But the subcategory Category:Coats of arms of cities in Oise‎ has only a few Semé-de-lis coats of arms, so clearly it should not apply to the subcategory.
(Both these examples are edits by User:Jimmy44 so I would like to see his opinions about this. Unforrunately I can't write French.) /Ö 10:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Coat of arms and the public[edit]

This is a question primarily aimed to the people who regularly draw arms for municipalities etc. which actively use their own (copyrighted) drawings. This is what I do for Swedish CoAs and what frequently happens is that newspapers/municipalities/authorities complain about "how Wikipedia is misrepresenting their 'logo'". Also it occasionally happens that organisations etc. use the Wikipedia drawing instead of the "official" one Each time follows the explanation of the differences between logos and coat of arms and between blazons and the graphical representations thereof.

So my question is whether this is something which others have also encountered (fr.wiki uses their own arms for municipalities unless I misremember) or if it is a Sweden only problem.

Secondly whereas {{Coat of arms}} is quite big and bulky and mainly focuses on copyright I was wondering whether something like {{Coa Sweden}} is actually more useful in terms of helping downstream users of the images. /Lokal_Profil 14:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree: the swedish template is correct, explicative and useful, more than template {{Coat of arms}}. So no-one municipal administration could complain but should be able to recognize the difference between Coa and logo. --Massimop (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Heraldic elements in categories[edit]

Do we have any common guidelines for categorizing SVG elements supposed to be used for heraldic presentations? I had a case where an user re-added coat of arms -related categories for an element he had separated from a flag. Personally, I think this kind of elements should not be added to categories like Coats of arms of Finland but at most to categories like Category:SVG coat of arms elements as it is clearly not a coat of arms, just one element, which could be part of coat of arms. Otherwise basically all the elements could be added into any common coats of arms -category. --Care (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Retry - please contribute[edit]

As this item is escalating into revert war, I would really appreciate if all of you participating to this wikiproject could give your opinion on this. I have created Category:Badges of Finland for some Finnish heraldic badges, which are following heraldic design principles, but which are not considered in Finland to be coat of arms as they do not have shield or blazon. However, there is another opinion that they should be categorized as Category:SVG coats of arms of Finland and Category:Coats of arms of Finland as well, former being the subcat of latter. In category tree all these three categories will meet at Category:Heraldry of Finland. Please... give me your opinion if this kind of heraldic figures should be categorized as coat of arms as well, or if they should appear only in badge category. --Care (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The elements should be categorized only as Badges of Finland: they are not coats of arms. --Massimop (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Emblems vs. Coats of Arms[edit]

In Europe, do you consider 'coat of arms' and 'emblem' as synonymous? --Care (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi !
Not really, I think : a coat of arms can be an emblem, but an emblem isn't necessary a coat of arms.
Why this surprising question ?
Regards,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
This relates to previous topic. I was claimed that emblems and coat of arms are synonymous - which I believe is true at least to some extent in case of North American heraldry. Based on this an user is categorizing some Finnish emblems and heraldic elements as coats of arms. At least here - like you said - emblems can be heraldic, but heraldist would most probably feel insulted if his CoA is entitled just as an emblem. Thanks, --Care (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Good question, my thoughts are that a coat of arms is a type of emblem, but they are definitely not synonymous. A coat of arms is a product of heraldry, which has its own set of rules and laws regulating it. Although an emblem can contain heraldic elements it is not necessarily a coat of arms, because it has more elements or does not follow the 'rules' of heraldry. Furthermore coats of arms are almost always issued by a heraldic authority (College of Arms, Lord Lyon and Canadian Heraldic Authority, etc.) or by a monarch. However an emblem can be issued by any authority (Governments and institutions), usually to represent itself. Such as State Seals and National symbols etc., most commonly in North America as you say, but also in the rest of the world, excluding Europe. As a heraldist, I wouldn't feel insulted at all- all coat of arms are emblems to an extent, however coat of arms usually contains more baggage and issues in relating to its issue and use, than an emblem. Sodacan (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your excellent comment. I believe the difference between us and UK is that our heraldry is relatively young, and while questioning centuries old traditions is almost - well - out of question in UK, we have seen here in past few years that government bodies, companies and municipalities are seeking to replace their heraldic emblems with more 'trendy' ones. Sometimes I am reading between the lines that our heraldists are not too happy to get their work compared against of that of graphical designers. --Care (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you mean. But as someone who considers himself both a graphics designer and heraldist, I don't see why they would be particularly unhappy. But there is a real and important difference between the two, which should be understood:
In heraldry, everything: colour, shapes and beasts are recorded and described in a Blazon; which is a code written in half English/French. All images are derived from this code, not from any image. For example the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, is a universally recognisable emblem representing the UK. Here are two examples: here is one on the gates of Buckingham Palace and another version used by the Britannica Encyclopedia. Both are heraldically identical, but to most people they look very different. This is because heraldry allows the artist to have space for artistic interpretations and variations, as long as it does not violate the blazon. At the College of Arms in London, there is an archive of books dating back centuries, recording every coat of arms ever issued by the British monarch to his/her subjects. Yet most of these books contain not a single picture, just texts- this is because heraldry is created not out of any single picture, but a description of it.
An emblem, on the other hand (or a logo even) is a very specific artistic depiction used in branding. Where, any body who wants to use the image must depict it exactly. For example: this diagram here shows the construction and measurement of Apple Inc.'s logo. This allows no artistic interpretation, variation or creative input whatsoever. It is a brand image in which every curve and feature must be replicated.
Hope this goes some way in explaining the difference between the two. I do not personally prefer one to the other, since they are used for different things. However I often feel that heraldry is better since it has a much more timeless quality to it. And as an artist it gives me much more room and space to explore and put my mark on things. An example is the Coat of arms of the City of London, which was granted in 1381, quite possibly by King Henry IV. It is still use by the City to this day, however it has been recently redesigned to give it a more 'modern' and 'trendy' look. The new minimalistic and futuristic depiction (which I think is very beautiful) however does not at all distract or take away anything from the traditional depiction. Sodacan (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Sodacan is an heraldic Bible: no further explication is necessary. --Massimop (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What can be categorized under SVG coats of arms of country?[edit]

I am looking for opinions what kind of SVG drawings can be categorized as SVG coat of arms of some specific country. Obviously SVG-drawings of coats of arms approved in that particular country, but can there be something else like individual elements from CoAs? We have Category:SVG coat of arms elements, but what's the relationship between these two? --Care (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

User:CORNELIUSSEON et la catégorisation[edit]

Français : Bonjour.

Quelqu'un pourrait-il expliquer le principe de la catégorisation à User:CORNELIUSSEON (je l'aurai bien fait moi-même, mais mon niveau d'anglais ne me le permet pas). En effet, CORNELIUSSEON catégorise les blasons qu'il importe par blasonnement, conséquence : 1 figure/catégorie (donc aucun intérêt de la catégorie) et des intitulés de catégorie interminables (je voudrais bien savoir comment il ferait pour cette image !!! Stowe Armorial.jpg).

Florilège 
Cordialement,--Jimmy44 (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Je croyais me souvenir que cela lui avait déjà été expliquer, apparemment non…
Apparemment, il n'y a pas que la catégorisation qu'il faudrait lui expliquer…
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Moor heads in heraldry[edit]

Can this please be changed by someone who has the authority. It should be Moor's head. That is to say one Moor's head or in the plural, two Moors' heads. "Moor heads" sounds as if the poor Moor might have dozens of heads, which is very difficult when he is usually not portrayed with a body! Kiltpin (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Crises in heraldry[edit]

This is obviously a mis-spelling. Can this please be changed to "Crosses in heraldry"? Kiltpin (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Giro720 (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Stigmatisation in heraldry[edit]

Can this please be changed to "Stigmata in heraldry"? Stigmatisation refers to the making of the wounds, whereas Stigmata refers to the wounds themselves. Kiltpin (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Signum[edit]

Why is this category included in Project Heraldry? I do not know where it belongs, but it has nothing to do with heraldry. Kiltpin (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Streamers[edit]

Why is this in the category "Heraldry", when it has nothing to do with heraldry? It should be in a category dealing with "vexillology", which is the study of flags! Kiltpin (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:War in heraldry[edit]

Can this please be changed to "Weapons" rather than "War". None of the shields depict a war, but they do depict weapons. For all we know they are being used for target practice! Kiltpin (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Giro720 (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

COA cardinal Norman Thomas Gilroy.svg[edit]

I've just uploaded that file. May I ask someone to check if "heraldically" correct? It's based on photo of card Gilroy's grave: 1. --Winiar 09:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This style of dolphin is becoming very popular here, but it is not traditional and in truth I don't know how it should be blazoned. It is not embowed (ie. bent in a curve), nor is it naiant (swimming), nor hauriant (with head upwards, as if drawing air). It is a bit of one and a bit of the other. I have just checked the URL and it is an accurate representation, but I still don't know how it should be blazoned. I have checked 'Boutell's' and it only gives the three attitudes that I have listed. The rest of the blazon is quite easy, but I am stuck on the dolphins. Sorry Kiltpin (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
In italian heraldry this kind of dolphin is ondeggiante in palo (en:entwined around/bowed embowed, fr:ondoyant, es:tortillante) and boccheggiante (en:pamé, fr:pâmé, es:pasmado). Some document tell Cardinal Gilroy bore as his arms: the arms of the Archdiocese of Sydney impaling argent (silver), three dolphins azure (blue), fined or (gold), two and one; and for motto: Christus Lux Mea. (Christ is My Light). (42) (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ article on George Cardinal Pell: creation of the seventh Cardinal of the Australian Church)--Massimop (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The closest translation I have found (that fits), is wavy. So I have added this blazon: Azure on a cross Argent four mullets of eight points Gules (for the Archdiocese of Sydney) impaling Argent three dolphins wavy Azure finned Gules (for Gilroy). Kiltpin (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Coats_of_arms_by_Otto_Hupp[edit]

Could someone help out here please? → Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Mass del Category:Coats_of_arms_by_Otto_Hupp -- πϵρήλιο 15:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Greetings,

I would very much appreciate if one of your talented designers could spare a moment of their time to create a coat of arms with the following blazon:

Party per pale, the first azure, half a chevron or, the second or, half a chevron azure.

Thank you very much in advance.--89.204.153.229 17:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean, Party per pale Azure and Or a chevron counterchanged? Kiltpin (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Half a chevron is a chevronel, so it shoud have two chevronels, one (or) on the dexter partition and one (azure) on the sinister partition. --Massimop (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Could this CoA be useful for your request?

--Massimop (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no! A half a chevron is not a chevronel. A chevronel is a chevron, but half the width. Your description is a bendlet. The request is for a dimidiation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimidiation Kiltpin (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Could be, but [en:wiki)] in the para Diminutives of the chevron tells: chevronel: "half" a chevron. Otherwise as you told the blazoning should be Party per pale Azure and Or a chevron counterchanged. --Massimop (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
This is very badly written and needs to be revised. A chevronel is half the width of a chevron as a bendlet is half the width of a bend. Kiltpin (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I believe that this is what the OP requested:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Request_1.png/506px-Request_1.png
Kiltpin (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Isn't this just "a chevron per pale countercharged?" or thereabouts? --NinjaKid (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The blazon is: Per pale Azure and Or a chevron counterchanged.
We need more information on the coat of arms: the name of the family, any picture and so on. In particular we need know wich is the origin ef the blazoning. --Massimop (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Coats of arms and emblems[edit]

Hello. I think we should make a difference in the categories between the traditional coats of arms (i.e. symbols on shields) and the various other symbols used to represent countries or organizations (for example this). I suggest to put the latter in Category:Emblems and its subcategories (the definition of emblem is "a design or picture that represents a country or an organization"). I think also we should add a warning in the CoA categories to remind that they only contain traditional coats of arms. BrightRaven (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree that something needs to be done, I don't know that this is it. Under Category:Emblems are many depictions that we in the UK would call badges - certainly all the military ones. All British military badges (ships, regiments, stations, bases, squadrons) are all controlled, designed and authorised by the College of Arms. All the American depictions were designed by their Department of Heraldry. The problem with Category:Emblems is that it is a 'catch-all' - everything could end up inside and most won't be anything to do with heraldry.
I think I would prefer to see a <:Category:Badges> and <:Category:Depictions used as a coat of arms> (or words to that effect)
Kiltpin (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Pending RfD[edit]

For your information : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Meuble héraldique Heaume or.svg.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Heraldic Visitations of Great Britain and Ireland Category[edit]

Having been working on my own external project regarding certain English coats of arms, I though it would be useful to categorise them based on the heraldic visitation in which they are blazoned. The parent category I have created is Category:Heraldic visitations of Great Britain and Ireland, underwhich are the various areas of the country that have had a visitation and under that are categories for the various separate visitations by year. I did this without discussion and realised it's probably better to discuss it here before I put too many arms in there. --NinjaKid (talk) 11:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. Kiltpin (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Other subcateogries of "Heraldic books" contains scans of illustrations and pages from the books. That is a bit different from your new categories with many images created from Commons SVG COA elements. Other than this I have no opinions if this is a good idea or not. /Ö 10:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Heraldry SVG elements[edit]

I am not sure what the difference is between this and Category:SVG coat of arms elements. There seems to be a big overlap between their purposes, and maybe they are even duplicates. Do we need both? /Ö 10:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a duplicate tree, although less used. Hadn't ever encountered it before. I dropped a note on Fred's talk page since he might know the intended difference. /Lokal_Profil 11:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I've started a nomination. I was also been specifically addressed on it again. -- πϵρήλιο 14:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I emptied the sub-categories and merged its contents with “Category:SVG coat of arms elements” so that an immediate deletion of “Category:Heraldry SVG elements” is feasible and recommended. --Kölner sprinter farbig.svg maxxl2 - talk 21:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably duplicating categories[edit]

How do you think, is there any sense in merge of these categories: Boats in heraldry and [[Category:Ship in heraldry]], Wolfsangel and Wolf hooks in heraldry, Flashes in heraldry and Lightning in heraldry? Ain92 (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree Boats in heraldry and [[Category:Ship in heraldry]] should be merged, possibly with a catch all title like "sailing vessels in heraldry"
Agree Wolfsangel and Wolf hooks in heraldry should be merged as they are the same thing. They do not exist in UK heraldry, so I would suggest the title should be Wolf hooks in heraldry.
Agree, with reservations Flashes in heraldry and Lightning in heraldry. Lightning bolts are a specific charge in UK heraldry, so maybe the title should be Lightning flashes in heraldry? Kiltpin (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought that you were trying to cut down on categories? Personally, I think Watercraft is fine and we could leave it at that. The danger is that we will have a different category for every single watercraft there has ever been.
A Lightning Bolt is taken from mythology and is quite stylised. A central twisted shaft, tapering towards the ends. Flames coming out of the ends. In saltire behind the shaft are lightning flashes. Kiltpin (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, after starting this topic I realised that 300 or 400 images in a category is too much, so we need to restructure the tree. What do you mean as "leave it at that"? What should I do now? I'm not acquainted with the procedure of restructuring of categories. Can I do it on my own? By the way, we already have several categories for watercrafts, e.g. Ancient ships in heraldry‎ (I propose it to be a subcat. of "Ships..."), Canoes in heraldry‎ (subcat. of "Boats..."), Rafts in heraldry‎ (subcat of "Watercraft..."), and several for watercraft parts. Where should we place them?
  • Could you redo these two categories (flashes and lightnings) yourselves? Unfortunately, I have little understood in all these heraldic terms without any examples. =(
  • Yours respectfully, Ain92 (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Plain heraldic shields‎ vs Category:Heraldic shields‎‎[edit]

They are both in Category:Coat of arms elements, but in "Plain heraldic shields"‎ are not Coa elements sorted (if it would "Plain heraldic shields" must be a subcategory of "Heraldic shields")!? The difference must must be explained in more detail. -- πϵρήλιο 11:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

ja, we should rename the first Plain shields as Category:Argent shields, and specify, thus Category:Plain shields (heraldry)‎ W!B: (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Heraldic helmets affronté[edit]

  • Confusion de "affronté" (= utilisé pour deux heaumes de profil, le dextre contourné) avec "taré de front" (= vu de face)
et quand je mets pour les blasons que j'importe la remarque " Les catégories héraldiques étant devenues délirantes, je renonce à catégoriser quoi que ce soit.", certains la retire en mentionnant "commentaire non pertinent". Vraiment ? --Ssire (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Heraldic attitudes[edit]

Firstly, congratulations, sorting coas became so easy here, everyone here did/does a great job. I did Category:Heraldic attitudes (to start with it) → Category:Heraldic figures by attitude‎ & Category:Facing the sinister in heraldry - please just move and delete, whatever mistake I made, by now, its still rather empty
I do not know how to emblazon - just - eagles' face turned right (in english) in Category:Eagles facing the sinister in heraldry: eagle contourné? greetings W!B: (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:crowns in heraldry[edit]

Info: For crowns as external ornament, see Category:Crowns in crest.
For crowns as charge (on a shield), see Category:Crowns in heraldry.

shouldn't we do:

and all subcategories? would be less misleading --W!B: (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right, but I would keep Category:Crowns in heraldry, with Category:Crowns in crest and Category:Crowns as charge as subcategories and Category:Heraldic crowns would become a redirect. BrightRaven (talk) 11:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

General user made heraldic style[edit]

I see the most user created coat of arms are simply unheraldic in strong meaning. I mean the Central Europe heraldic don't know smooth shadow, gradiants or shine directly in the escutcheon. (Especially I see this on high quality images from user SanglierT, Ssolbergj) -- πϵρήλιο 14:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok there are many exceptions from this, but however the general knowledge about heraldry is disastrously by many Wikipedia self creators. ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 20:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Simple question categorization tincture[edit]

Hello, there is a question how handle Category:Coats of arms by tincture. In the case if we put whole categories (families, towns etc. ) in there, there is the problem that in this categories also not colored (tinctured?) images are. So the question is: This category must be removed? (and put only the single image in there) Or in other words, also b/w photos in Category:Coats of arms by tincture can be? -- πϵρήλιο 12:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Tinctures and colors shouldn't be confounded, and black and white images also have tinctures : just see, for exemple, the monochrome representation of coat of arms.
Best regards,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Naming of files[edit]

Hello, I see much more nameing like "POL xxxx COA.svg", "DEU xxxx COA.svg" or "AUT Virgen COA.svg". From whence comes this convention and where to find it? -- πϵρήλιο 17:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

mainly from local wiki trials, like infobox automatisation, but that never worked: on de:WP we never got a consistent sheme W!B: (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Pigeons in heraldry Category:Doves in heraldry[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Pigeons in art has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

For your information. --Foroa (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Diapered in heraldry Category:Diapering in heraldry[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Diapering in heraldry has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

For your information. -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 14:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Party per pale/fess X and Y[edit]

These categories have descriptions like "This category is only for representations of coat of arms whose blazon is exactly "Party per pale Or and vert"". But most of them contain coats of arms with other elements in their blazons, for example "Per party or and gules, a lion rampant gules". This can be fixed either by removing content that does not match the description from the categories, or by changing the descriptions to match the content. I think the categories are still useful with a wider scope. Unless someone has any reasons for keeping the descriptions, I suggest we change them. /Ö 16:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I created those categories. I think we could change those descriptions. Nevertheless, I think it would be useful to have categories for exact blazoning in some cases, but we should probably use another name, like "Party per pale Or and vert (exact)". BrightRaven (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Just yesterday I replied to AnonMoos at my talk page that these descriptions may occur anywhere in a blazon. And I don't think they should be considered as "solely party per pale Or and vert" but may include other charges and divisions depending on context. Watch out for fesses and bends though that are surmounted on top of everything else; such charges would typically not match the category name of "Azure a bend gules". The current wording like "exactly 'party per pale Or and vert'" would exclude fancy edges like "party per pale wavy Or and vert..." or "party per pale embattled", but the rest is left open to any further blazon. De728631 (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding BrightRaven's comment I think we could have subcategories like "Party per pale Or and vert (only)" with a note that reads "This category is for representations of coats of arms whose shield is blazoned only 'Party per pale Or and vert'". I think it's important to mention the escutcheon in the note because a full blazon would typically also include the crest and supporters. De728631 (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

PD-old?[edit]

See here Commons_talk:Coats_of_arms #PD-old? -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 17:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Creating a new category[edit]

Crosslink / info: There is a question about here: Com:VP#Commons:_Categories -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 16:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Cathy Richards[edit]

Help! Can someone with some authority look at User:Cathy Richards , please. She seems intent in removing categories, including vital ones. I took her to task over the last batch and she reverted them, but today she is starting again. This seems to be a hobby with her. Please someone help. Kiltpin (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Coats of arms on pavement[edit]

Coat of arms in the Grandmaster's Palace in Valletta

Hi! I have trouble categorising pictures such as this one. First, it's made of pavement. Should it go into Category:Mosaics of coats of arms‎ or should I create a new category? Second, should it go into Category:Ecclesiastical heraldry of Malta as it's probably the COA of a grand master? Thanks in advance. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

To me it does'nt look like pavement but like a majolica. Therefore i would prefer Category:Mosaics of coats of arms‎ and as this image may be the CoA of Prince of Heitersheim, Grand Prior of the Maltese order in the Holy Roman Empire it belongs to Category Sovereign Military Order of Malta. --maxxl2 - talk 11:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it's the CoA of Rohan. I added this to the description. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Assistance needed[edit]

Hello, we have a coat-of-arms here, for the family of Nivelet. If anyone can help to create a drawing, please do and then drop me a note, so that we can use it in el:Ιωάννης Α΄ ντε Νιβελέ. --FocalPoint (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Escutcheon COM:OVERWRITE[edit]

Is a change after a reference a Minor (I mean) or a Major change? Example:[1] -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ 17:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Chiefs ermine in heraldry vs Category:Ermine spots in chiefs[edit]

These two are a bit ambiguous imho. Where do we draw the line between ermine spots and a full field of ermine? Obviously, two visible spots supercharged with something may be counted as single spots, but in general I suggest we take "Chiefs ermine in heraldry" as the parent category and treat "Ermine spots in chiefs" as a subcategory of the former. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No. "Chiefs ermine in heraldry" implies the presence of a field with lines of ermine spots that are integer, interlaced with other lines of ermine spots that are truncated by the edge lines of the field. Ermine spots in chiefs implies the presence of only integer spots and no one spot truncated. Blason ville fr Aizenay (Vendée).svg is ermine with a chief gules, where Agdenes komm.svg is argent whit 21 ermine spots, a chief gules. --Massimop (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


  • As far as English heraldry is concerned, both these shields are the same. For the simple reason that more than 10 charges on a field are considered 'semy'. Unless it is important to the blazon that there be an exact number of spots to represent an exact number of other things, then 11+ spots would be just ermine (the fur). These ermine spots (like all semy charges), might be cut by the edge of the field, but need not be so. It is artistic choice.
  • It is all down to the blazon. If the blazon states 'Eleven ermine spots, 6&5', I expect to see a full chief with two rows of spots. But if I did not know what the blazon was, I would blazon it 'Ermine'.
  • I am tending to agree with De728631 - provided we have a blazon. Kiltpin (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Right, unless we have a blazon that determines a specific number of spots we should sort it to "ermine". @Massimo, the shields you showed have no ermine whatsoever in chief. I'm talking about Blason de la ville de Belflou (11).svg vs Blason ville fr Redon (Ille-et-Vilaine).svg De728631 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
My notation is based on A GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN HERALDRY by JAMES PARKER: Semé, (fr.), sometimes written semy: means that the field is sown or strewed over with several of the charges named, drawn small and without any reference to the number. Various synonyms are used by heraldic writers. In a roll temp. HEN. III., poudré is most frequently used, meaning precisely the same; in another roll plein de in found. More modern writers used such terms as aspersed, replenished with, and two old French terms averlye and gerattie are also given in glossaries. Some writers use sans nombre, and a very fanciful distinction has been made between this and semé, namely, that when all the charges are drawn entire sans nombre should be used, but if the outline of the field or any ordinary cuts any of the charges that then semé should be used. In the case of semé of crosslets, billets, bezants, the special term crusily, billetty, and bezanty, already noted in their proper places, are preferable. Platy, hurty, and tortoily, are not so. In italian heraldry seminato is the same of previous semy. With this meaning Blason de la ville de Belflou (11).svg is a chief ermine where Blason ville fr Redon (Ille-et-Vilaine).svg is a chief argent, 5 ermine spots. --Massimop (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
@ De728631, yes and no. No blazon and more than 10, to my mind equals Ermine. Less than 10 are ermine spots. Kiltpin (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Disputed Arms[edit]

I was looking at and I noticed an pattern, most of the time there is no discussion, which is fine, but there is also no action. Feel free to correct these arms. Tinynanorobots (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Bishop Eva Brunne[edit]

Can someone create an image of the coat of arms of Eva Brunne, Bishop of Stockholm? The coat of arms can be found here. Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms images without a license: needs history check[edit]

There are several hundred images in Category:Coats of arms images without a license: needs history check. All (or most)) of those files do not have a license and are in danger of being deleted. Many of the files lost their license due to vandalism, incorrect transfer form local wikipedia, mistakes by well meaning editors, etc. (see instructions in Category:Media_without_a_license:_needs_history_check). An assistance of users familiar with copyright laws related to Heraldry, would be appreciated if they could help with either adding proper licenses or tagging the files with {{no license}} templates. --Jarekt (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to help with that. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Chequy chiefs and Category:Chiefs counter-compony[edit]

Hi,

Could someone explain the difference(s) beetween Category:Chequy chiefs and Category:Chiefs counter-compony ?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess Category:Chiefs counter-compony holds only such shields with two rows of fesses chequy while Category:Chequy chiefs holds the others with more rows. --Maxxl2 - talk 11:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
None of the coats of arms in Category:Chiefs counter-compony has "chief counter-compony" in their blazons. The French ones are all "au chef échiqueté [... de deux tire]" (chequy [... with two rows]) (except File:Blason Champlin.svg, which seems to be missing a word in the blazon). There are also a German COA with "geschachtem Schildhaupt", a Spanish COA which I think says something about chequy, and a Czech COA which I don't understand at all. Therefor I think it is unnecessary with a category for chiefs counter-compony and all images can be moved to Category:Chequy chiefs. /Ö 21:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
A glossary of terms used in Heraldry of James Parker uses:
  • gobony, said of an ordinary composed of small squares of two tinctures alternately in one row;
  • counter-compony if there be two rows;
  • chequy if there are more of two rows.
So, because of the categories description are in english languages there shoud be three categories: chief gobony, chief counter-compony, chief chequy, for one, two and more of two rows.--Massimop (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
According to A Complete Guide to Heraldry, 'gobony' seemingly doesn't have to be square. See File:Complete Guide to Heraldry Fig724.png where "a bordure gobony azure and argent" has been drawn rather flat in height as compared to the width of the cells. So this would correspond to gestückt in German. De728631 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Horns in crest: hunting horns, bull horns, "trunks"[edit]

It occured to me that there are several ambiguous depictions in Category:Post and hunting horns in crest that should probably better be sorted into Category:Bull horns in crest or even simply into Category:Animal body parts in crest. E.g. this Polish COA has been blazoned by Rietstap as "D'or à deux prob[oscides] ..." (p. 246 Chorinski) i.e. "Or two trunks...". In the glossary of his armorial he writes furthermore: "Proboscides. Trompes d'éléphant. Les Allemands portent fréquemment en cimier des cornes de buffle, qu'on représente communément, quoique à tort, sous la forme de proboscides." (Proboscides. Elephant trunks. The Germans frequently wear buffalo horns in crest, which usually, although erroneously, represent the form of trunks.) The Hungarian term seems to be elefántormány, elephant trunks, too.

According to de:Büffelhörner, these "buffalo horns" originate from hunting trophies and were depicted as proper peaked horns in early heraldry. In later times though, the form of the buffalo horns became more and more abstract which included replacing the points with rings, so that the items looked rather like a musical horn with a mouthpiece although they were meant to represent animal horns. Category:Bull horns in crest links to this WP article and the associated term, so I wonder where to sort the predominantly Polish arms with this type of crest that are left in Category:Post and hunting horns in crest, because a hunting horn in crest is usually pretty obvious and should have been blazoned as such. De728631 (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As to the COA of Choryński, although a Polish family, the arms were originally granted by the Autrian realm [3] which used German heraldic traditions, so I've moved all of these to "Bull horns". De728631 (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kites in heraldry[edit]

Six of the seven files currently at Category:Kites in heraldry do not show the forked tail of kites, and I suspect would be better categorised at Category:Buzzards in heraldry (the exception being File:Znak-rajec1.jpg, which does clearly show a kite). Unless there is any clear history of kites being intended in these coats of arms, they would best be recategorised. Anyone know if kites are the intended birds in any of them? - MPF (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Lorraine[edit]

Why there is no Category:Coats of Arms of the Duchy of Lorraine, or one for the County? Will it be correct to categorize Category:Lorraine in pretence to that effect? What about something out of Category:Coats of arms of Lorraine or Category:Coats of arms of René I of Naples? Danny lost (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Ukrainian trident in heraldry[edit]

This category needs discussion. Which name is the better. Anyway this symbol is in very disorder through several sub Cats. -- Perhelion (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Coats of arms for Croatian regions[edit]

Hello there all. I was directed here from COM:GL/I to request assistance regarding producing accurate, heraldic, vector images for Wikimedia of the four principal regions of en:Croatia. What you see up there are the best that we have currently.

  • The coat of arms of Croatia (the region proper, not the republic) is a chequy Gules and Argent.
  • The coat of arms of Dalmatia is azure, with three crowned golden leopards' heads affrontés Or, langued in Gules. Traditionally the heraldic leopards' (lions') heads are maned, langued, frowning, facing forward, and roaring. I'm told the current version we have (as seen up there) isn't heralidic, and that the escutcheon is improperly formed.
  • The coat of arms of Slavonia is Azure, a fess Gules fimbriated Argent surmounted by a mullet of six points Or, a marten Sable courant proper in chief.
  • The coat of arms of Istria is azure, a capricorn statant Or, attired and hoofed Gules. Some versions have the goat walking (passant), but this is inaccurate.

We are currently working on enWiki to cover the regions of the country properly, and are hoping we could have the coats of arms in uniform appearance, with the same basic escutcheon shape and colour shades. Thanks in advance for any and all assistance. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright on Spanish Coa (deletion warning)[edit]

This seems a bit questionable, because there is no Spanish permission/ copyright template. For example every Spanish Coa could be arbitrarily tagged as speedy deletion. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Escudo de Chipiona.svg User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)12:26, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done

Merge Template:Blason-fr-en-itTemplate:COAInformation[edit]

Cross talkpage link User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)12:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)