User talk:Kiltpin

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Kiltpin!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

-- 21:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Hello, Kiltpin!

Tip: Add categories to your images

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

Uploadwizard-categories.png

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations"). Pro-tip: The CommonSense tool can help you find the best category for your image.

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done

File:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston–Houston.svg[edit]

You added a {{en}} inside another {{en}}, which is not the way to go... AnonMoos (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blason William Montagu (2e comte de Salisbury) (version Gelre).svg [edit]

Template:DesagreeCe blason et dessiné tel qu'il est présenté dans le Folio 56v de l'Armorial de Gelre (Gelre ne connaissant pas les deux autres quartiers), mais une version corrigée et indiquée dans le dit folio : comment être plus clair ?--Jimmy44 (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Label argent[edit]

That's not what Fox-Davies seems to say on p. 487.[1], [2] Also, if you're deleting substantial text, then it's better not do so with an edit summary which doesn't explain why you're deleting substantial text... AnonMoos (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's fine to be bold, but if you delete substantial text without giving any reason (and in fact, your edit summary only talks about something else), then it can raise a red flag in the eyes of others. And you may be perfectly correct about the situation during the past two years, but what you deleted had some degree of truth with regard to traditional customary usages. However, I don't really care anymore, so go ahead and re-delete if you want... AnonMoos (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blason William Montagu (2e comte de Salisbury) (version Gelre).svg[edit]

Message tied up in Ribbon.jpg Hello, Kiltpin. You have new messages at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blason William Montagu (2e comte de Salisbury) (version Gelre).svg's talk page.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Asturianu | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Português | Română | Русский | Slovenščina | Svenska | Türkçe | +/−

--Jimmy44 (talk) 07:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Category grenades[edit]

Hello Kiltpin. Do you believe that the category Category:Grenades_in_heraldry has a correct name? I always have believed that the name of this figure in English was "fire-balls". Glossary by James Parker Bye, --Xavigivax (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Xavigivax. Not easy. I think technically they are two different things. The grenade contains an explosive and does damage by shrapnel and blast injury. Whereas the fireball would contain an inflammable liquid and do damage as an incendiary. Which one was used, would I think depend on the target. Grenade for people and fire ball for buildings. Certainly, in the UK, the image seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Grenadier-Guards-Cap-Badge.jpg is very well known by most people. Whereas, when people hear fire ball, most would think of Fireball XL5 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireball_XL5 Overall, I think that there is a place for both as they are different things and have different functions, although they look the same. If I were to blazon a shield with a grenade/fire ball on it, I think I would, by default, go for grenade, if I did not know specifically that it was a fire ball. Kiltpin (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, then I will create a redirection with the category "Fire-balls in heraldry". Regards. --Xavigivax (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrol[edit]

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. INeverCry 19:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Pigeons and Doves[edit]

Hallo Kiltpin, may you have a second look at the category discussion? Maybe the symbolic of the doves should be better highlighted by the name of said categories, so I made some suggestions. Thank you --84.181.61.154 15:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

saltires[edit]

you can see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Illustrated_atlas_of_French_and_English_heraldic_terms#F

flanchis Saltorel(le) / small saltire couped Category:Saltires in heraldry

bye. --Chatsam (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I ask for a second opinion to [3]
But one x in a band becomes one + --Chatsam (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I agree with Chatsam. I know the difference between a saltire (or saltorel) (X) and a cross (+). But, according to the rules of heraldry, an heraldic charge, when placed on a inclined honourable ordinary, as a bend or a sinister bend, must follow the inclination of this honourable ordinary. Thus, when a saltorel is placed on a bend, it must be tilted to follow the direction of the bend. Visually the saltire "turns into" a cross. I apologize for my poor english. Regards --Tretinville (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Chatsam and Tretinville, Sorry for the delay. I have been consulting with colleagues in the Heraldry Society and the Heraldry Society of Scotland. It seems that there are two standards - the French and the English/Scottish. While you both are quite right in saying that a saltire is a saltire, over here we put more emphasis on the visual aspects - what we see is what we blazon. That is to say that the cross and the saltire are exceptions to the rule. One of the reasons is that although charges are oriented in line with the bend automatically, we do not do so with the bend sinister or the saltire. On both of those the orientation of the charge must be specified.
I was not aware that there were two different standards and for bringing it to my attention, I thank you. As you are no doubt aware, Chatsam, I am blazoning, in English, the shields you have created. I think you were quite right to re-instate the category:saltire. For my part, when it comes to blazoning these arms, I will blazon to the French standard, but put in a note about the English standard.
Tretville - your English is very good. Far superior to my French! Regards to you both. Kiltpin (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

WLM doodle poll[edit]

Hi, unfortunately your response on the Doodle poll was removed by a spammer after the link to the poll became public. If you could respond again on the poll, that would be appreciated. Sorry about the inconvenience. -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom is ready to go![edit]

Hi. Please visit the updated WLM page, at Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom. You may want to move your name to an appropriate category. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

WLM organization in the UK[edit]

Thanks for indicating your interest in this. I'd like to get some proper teams in place now, so we can decide who will be doing what, and I wonder if you could go to Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United Kingdom/People and move your signature to the correct heading? Many thanks, --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)