Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 12 days and sections whose oldest comment is older than 90 days. For the archive overview, see archive.

Spelling coat of arms abbreviation[edit]

As we can see there is an huge inequality of the spelling Coa, COA or CoA (or coa). This is an big vexation in naming templates, files, anything. As pronounced here on Commons seems "Coat of Arms". Any explanation/recommendation or consensus here⁇ Greeting User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  15:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • To my mind CoA = College of Arms. I see no reason why a coat of arms should be capitalised, it is neither a proper noun, nor the title of an institution. I think therefore it should be abbreviated as coa. --Kiltpin (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for comment. I would like to see more comments. The most people on the English Project seems to use "CoA".
I prefer "COA" for categories / files / templates, as meaningful abbreviations are on EnWP/Commons always capitalized. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  10:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Kiltpin. I think coa is the most proper abbreviation linguistically. Snowsuit Wearer (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • But I see now in many old and new English heraldic books, the naming is “Coat of Arms”!?![1][2][3][4] User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  10:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

merging of templates[edit]

Lately I was working on finding files in Category:Media missing infobox template that use a non standard infobox templates and converting them to main-stream templates when I run into info boxes for Heraldic metadata:

The first 4 templates are often used without use of {{Information}} template or other Infobox templates and should be converted to {{COAInformation}}. Ideally all the templates would get merged into one so all the heraldic files are consistent. Also a single template with 20k+ transclusions would be much easier to properly maintain and internationalize than 6-7 separate templates. I have done similar consolidation of many templates to create {{Book}}, {{Artwork}} and lately {{Spoken article}}. One issue is that I really do not like the structure of {{COAInformation}}, as it uses {{CoaInfobox}} to create multiple sub tables each for different language. There were a few other templates in the past that tried to create separate {{Information}}-like template for each language but they all eventually were replaced with {{Information}} template with multiple {{en|…}}, {{fr|…}}, {{it|…}}, etc. Other issue I have is that the parameter names might make sense to french speakers but all other major templates use English as a the language for parameters. So I wrote preliminary version of what I would imagine such template should look like: Template:COAInformation/sandbox where each parameter might have description in many languages. --Jarekt (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support go ahead. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  14:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I created {{COAInformation/alternative}} and modified {{COAInformation}} to call it if parameters "blazon" or "blazon of" are present. I used that template for images previously using User:Odejea/Blason, which can be found in Category:Files by Odejea/PNG coat of arms. --Jarekt (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I converted User:Odejea/Blason and {{Blason-xx}} to use {{COAInformation}} with alternative parameters. Working now on {{Blason-fr-en-it}} and {{Blason-fr-en}} which are not embedded in the {{Information}} templates. --Jarekt (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I replaced all the uses of {{Blason-fr-en-it}} and {{Blason-fr-en}} and redirected them to {{COAInformation}} --Jarekt (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I replaced all the uses of {{COAInformation/fr}} and rewrote the template to use new {{COAInformation}} syntax in case anybody uploads new files using this template. We have over 20k files using the new "simplified" syntax and there are less than 100 files using the old {{COAInformation}} syntax, mostly reverts by User:Asqueladd who prefers the old look. There are several option on how to finish this unification:
  1. The cleanest solution would be to retire the old syntax and rewrite upload instructions to use the new one. That way there would be only one {{COAInformation}} like there is only one {{Book}} or {[tl|Artwork}}. However there might be still new uploads using the old syntax and that would break reverted files.
  2. We can rename the old {{COAInformation}} syntax to {{COAInformation/old}} and change the files using it to use that template. This however does not help with the new uploads using the old syntax
  3. We can support both old and new syntax; However that makes the template very messy and documentation confusing.
I am leaning towards solution #2. Any other opinions? --Jarekt (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
If Asqueladd is the only person doing the new uploads, we could ask him to move a copy of the old template to his userspace, so he can continue using it. But any solution should probably be discussed with him. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not like infobox templates in user namespace. They can get easily broken without anybody noticing for years and than it is unclear if it is Ok to fix them or not, so I usually change them to the standard templates. As for {{COAInformation}}, I implemented option #2 so the current version of {{COAInformation}} only follows the new syntax. --Jarekt (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
All ✓ Done here. There is only one template now: {{COAInformation}} with over 20k files using it. Please help updating project and template documentation on Commons and wikipedias accordingly. --Jarekt (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


I was just looking at Template:COAElementInformation and thinking about merging it with Template:COAInformation. Template:COAElementInformation did not changed much in last 7-8 years and seems to be based on Template:Heraldic-figure-fr. Original Template:Heraldic-figure-fr used terms: fr:Meuble héraldique, en:Heraldic figure (latter corrected in {{COAElementInformation}} to en:Common charge), de:Heraldische Figur, it:Figura araldica, es:Figura heráldica; which is sort of a mix of d:Q1424805, d:Q1076566 and d:Q3516658 wikidata elements. In other words French equivalent of es:Figura (heráldica), en:Charge (heraldry) and de:Heraldische Figur is fr:Charge (héraldique) instead of fr:Meuble héraldique and in Italian it is it:Carico araldico instead of it:Heroldinė figūra which means something very different. I am no expert in Heraldic nomenclature but can someone more familiar with it check if associations in d:Q1424805, d:Q1076566 and d:Q3516658 are correct and than which one of those concepts best matches files using Template:COAElementInformation. --Jarekt (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The first one, Charge (heraldry), I think; I don’t believe the distinction between Fr. charge & meuble is made the same way in English, where “charge” can mean either of those according to context. But I suppose “element” was chosen to emulate the less-ambiguous French usage. The instructions for the parameter “notcharge” are my principal clue here, implying that the template covers objects that include charges / meubles and ordinaries / pièces.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed that the above item links to Heraldic figures, which from a brief survey of the content seems about right … but I admit to very little knowledge of the overall heraldic category structure here.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Requirement: Creating a new category (recommendation)[edit]

Cross talk link → Commons:Village pump #Requirement: Creating a new category (recommendation) User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  10:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Scottish arms[edit]

I notice in Coats of arms of families of Scotland the included cats are almost all named {Surname) arms rather than Coat(s) of arms of (Surname). Several cats in the latter form exist, but they’re subcats of the former (some of them empty), and it’s quite unclear to me on what criteria arms should be placed in one kind or the other. At first I thought the CoA of … cats might be for the undifferenced or ancestral arms and the parents for their derivatives, but if that was the intention it doesn’t appear to have been followed through with any consistency. I’d like to clear this up, but I’d appreciate some guidance before I make the mess worse.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Contrary to the above, I notice Stuart arms is a subcat of Coats of arms of the House of Stuart. (And the latter insists on sorting in the families cat under C, despite having “Stuart” for a key. I tried retyping it with HotCat, in case there was an invisible character, but it made no difference.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)