Category talk:Modern attributed arms

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

The term "attributed" isn't really correct here. Attributed arms are about real historical figures (or people who were thought to be real). "Arms described in works of fiction" would be better, I think.
Le terme "attributed" n'est pas vraiment correct. "Attributed arms" sont de vraies personnes historiques (ou les personnes de qui on a pensé qu'ils sont vrai). "Arms described in works of fiction" ("Les armes décrites dans des ouvrages de fiction") vaudrait mieux, je pense.
Adelbrecht (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know what the difference is between this category and Category:Special or fictional coats of arms, but SSire insists at all costs on ascribing some great historical significance and meaning to the Clochemerle thing... AnonMoos (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
"Special or fictional coats of arms" is a very disorganized category. And there are enough of these arms from fictional works to make a separate category. Category:Heraldry of Middle-earth and Category:Harry Potter coats of arms can be subcategories. Adelbrecht (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
How about "Category:Fictional arms from modern literature", then? AnonMoos (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


Français : (missing text)
Je ne comprends pas que vous ne compreniez pas. Il s'agit simplement de ce référer au droit des armes. Quiconque peut se doter des armes de son choix (sans prendre celles d'un autre). Certains pays à certaines époque ont limité ce droit, mais il n'y a pas d'exemple où il y a eut obligation d'en prendre (du moins pas de manière déclarée). Donc que sont les attributed arms? Hé bien, celles justement qui sont attribuées à quelqu'un sans qu'il le sache, donc hors du droit héraldique. Le tri est donc très simple : ou bien Machin porte ses armes, ou bien on fait porter à Machin des armes qu'il n'a pas choisit et qui lui sont attribuées.
A partir de là, il a été fait des études. Pastoureau a étudiés les caractéristiques des productions du Moyen-Âge/renaissance et à fait une synthèse de ce qu'étaient les attributed arms de l'époque et il a trouvé que ça conceranait les anciens rois, les preux, etc, etc. en fait ce qui est décrit dans l'article anglais.
Malheureusement il n'y a pas eu un autre Pastoureau pour faire la même étude aux époques suivantes, et des gens comme vous - et l'article anglais, ainsi que celui en français influencé par celui en anglais avant que je ne vienne rectifier le tir - en on déduit que seul le Moyen-Âge avait produit des attributed arms et qu'elles devait être donc selon la mode de cette époque.
Or Pastoureau à délaissé toute une branche importante des attributed arms, c'est celle qui constitue le monde musulman (voir l'article de Fanny Caroff que j'ai cité dans fr:Héraldique imaginaire) et a cité comme attributed arms des armes de personnages de roman de Balzac. Ce qui montre que
même pour le M-A, la définition n'est pas complète
que la notion n'est pas limité à cette periode.
Mon insistance à maintenir Clochemerle tient surtout a combatre votre vision elitiste de l'héraldique. Elle est aussi la posséssion du peuple, et ne doit pas forcement revétir une grande importance historique. Il est de petit blason minable, même au moyen äge. Et j'ai été ravi de trouver ce blason.

:EN (proximely)

I don't enderstand wy you not enderstand. only refer to the "right of the arms". Anyone right give itself the arms he chose himself, (without other's arms). Some states in some periods reduct this right, but no state in no period oblige to have arms. If anyone receave arms without consent, the arms are "attributed". So it's easy to sort arms: they are either legal or attributed.
Pastoureau studies the attributed arms in a precise period and difine the caracteristic of this period.
Infortunetly there is not other Pastoureau por studies the same fenomen in others periods. So guss like you means that attributed arms are only this describe for this period.
But Pastoureau missed la muslim attributed arms during and post crusades (studed by of Fanny Carrof) and tell "attributed arms" for arms of character in Balzac roman. Tio pruve that atributed arms are not only what you thing about this.
I insist for hold "clochemerle" mainly for conter yor elitist maner to concept heraldism. Heraldism is also por working-class, and ne nead neceserely some great historical significance. Some Medieval Arm also where mundaneness, crudeness. And I am very happy to find this COA, as a good exemple of people COA.
--Ssire (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


Dude, it is not "elitist" to insist on the correct meanings of words, and that things which are not similar are not grouped together. The Clochemerle thing can be a perfect example of "Category:Fictional arms from modern literature" (though it's still a stupid unfunny joke), but it does not fall under the accepted and established meaning of "attributed arms"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
What joke (funny or not, stupid or not) ? I don't see any joke in this blason ! Cloche + Merle ? Cloche + Merle is not a joke but a rebus, and there are a very great number of that sort of rebus in heraldry.
Correct meaning of "attributed" is "given" in kontrast with "chose". Clochemerle not chose this arms, someone gives Clochemerle this arms. COA are attributed, in the absolute correct meanig. --Ssire (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The Cloche+Merle component is "canting arms"; the pissoir is the stupid unfunny joke. AnonMoos (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
By the way, File:Blason_fam_fr_Foch_(attribué).svg is the only image currently in the category which satisfies the real meaning of "Modern attributed arms"... AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Explain wy "the only" ! Are the only who know what is the real meaning of "modern attributed arms", expression I just invent ? --Ssire (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Because it's the only one which doesn't fit better into the Category:Fictional coats of arms from modern literature category... AnonMoos (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
stupid. --Ssire (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)