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 newest comment is older than 90 days. For the archive overview, see archive.

Pickerels/Lucies[edit]

Are Category:Pickerels in heraldry and Category:Lucies in heraldry the same thing or is there a difference? If there is a difference, can someone make it clear in the category descriptions? --Slomox (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The categories are the same. Description of image LucyHauriant svg element.svg specifies that Lucy is the ancient term for Pike fish. So, they should be unified, I think in Category:Pickerels in heraldry.--Massimop (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I have unified them in Category:Pickerels in heraldry. --Slomox (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Lightning/Flashes[edit]

What is the difference between Category:Lightning in heraldry and Category:Flashes in heraldry? The description of the lightning category says something about the presence of thunderbolts being the difference, but when I look at the coats of arms in the two categories I do not see any clear differences. --Slomox (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think could be useful unify this two categories: image seems be the same. --Massimop (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Wolf hooks/Wolfsangel[edit]

Is it really useful to have Category:Wolfsangel (German for "wolf hook") and Category:Wolf hooks in heraldry as two separate categories? There seems to be no clear distinction and the German coats of arms showing wolf hooks are spread over both categories. --Slomox (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Also in this case the images are the same. I think the two categories should be unified and could be included also the category Category:Cramps in heraldry. --Massimop (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I would redirect it, as en:Wolfsangel declares it is a German charge and Wolfs hook is only the translation. Mainly compare also to es:Wolfsangel, fr:Wolfsangel, nl :Wolfsangel and other. PS: And as we can see on Category:Wolf hooks in heraldry are only German or German related CoA. -- User: Perhelion 12:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Cramps this is much more complicated as believed. This is not a synonyme as we can read her in German https://heraldik-wiki.de/wiki/Doppelhaken also Wolfsangel and Wolfshaken are not really the same (as I read see now). @Massimop, Slomox: We should put clarifications on each Cat. -- User: Perhelion 14:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
There are also wolf hooks from other countries: File:Blason_de_la_ville_de_Wentzwiller_(68).svg, File:Skřinářov_CoA.jpg, File:Chewreczk.png, but perhaps these are "German-influenced", as they are from regions where Germans where present historically. --Slomox (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I add a clarification to Category:Wall anchors in heraldry: Special:Diff/203831339/280105037. PS: As I see now, Wolfsangel is the main name and Wolfsanker und Wolfshaken are sub-names in German[1]) So Wolf hooks is an sub-category of Wolfsangel not vice versa. -- User: Perhelion 14:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
PS: There is an additional "problem" „Die Frage, was eine Wolfsangel ist und was nicht, ist trefflich geeignet, unter Heraldikern endlose Diskussionen hervorzurufen...“[2] I'll try to make clarification here. -- User: Perhelion 16:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Solution: The term is also in German now fully confusing (another reason to not use it here). It is really hard to say. It is as en:Wolfsangel (and http://www.welt-der-wappen.de/Heraldik/wolfsangel.htm) describes. "Wolf-hooks" Wolfshaken are only in German used as term for Wolfsangel. So we should Category:Wolfsangel and Category:Wolf hooks in heraldry (which is named in the article as "wolf-hook" translation only) change to a redirect to Category:Crampons in heraldry (moved from Category:Cramps in heraldry) same term in En and Fr and sort the real Wolfsangel to Category:Wolfsanker (aka en: wolf-trap/wolf-anchor; fr: hameçon or hameçon de loup)
PS: After all this recherche, I found now a real reference for my propose: http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/crampon_(heraldry), http://mistholme.com/dictionary/crampon/. After an answer of an heraldic expert I propose to leave both Cats, Crampons and Wolfsangel, as this terminology can't be translate one to one, because heraldry and language have developed differently in these cultural areas (especially in this case).  -- User: Perhelion 23:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Swords and keys saltirewise[edit]

We have Category:Keys saltirewise a sword overall and Category:A sword with keys saltirewise. Do I rightly assume that the difference is whether the sword is above or below the keys? Or are they the same? --Slomox (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

And when we are at it: is there a difference between Category:Crossed swords in heraldry and Category:2 swords in saltire? --Slomox (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I guess Category:Keys saltirewise through which a sword is the third category where the sword is between the two keys. --Slomox (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sword related stuff[edit]

Do we have categories for these things? And if not how should they be named?

  • swords with snakes Coats of arms of Kharkiv (Bekenstein projekt).jpg
  • swords sticking in stuff 479th Flying Training Group.png, Blason Es famille Eizaguirre (Guipuscoa).svg, POL COA Sokołowski.svg
  • animals holding swords 834th Air Division crest.jpg, Coat of Arms of the 47th Infantry Regiment Palma.svg
  • swords throwing flashes 755th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron.jpg, 53d Wing.png
  • swords with books Coat of arms of Kieran O’Reilly.svg

--Slomox (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Partial answer to myself: we have Category:Lions with swords. --Slomox (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I created Category:Animals with swords in heraldry now. --Slomox (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Related to "swords with snakes" but not the same: Category:Caduceus in heraldry. --Slomox (talk) 12:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Categorization of coats of arms per image or per blazon[edit]

How do we categorize coats of arms: do we look at the image or at the blazon?

When I do edits to the categories, I obviously look at the images to see what's in the coats of arms. Everything else would mean a ridiculous amount of additional work. Just a few image descriptions of coats of arms have blazons and many written blazons cannot be found on the internet at all. And when they are online, most of them are in languages I don't understand (and even if I understand the language, that doesn't mean I could understand the special heraldry terminology in that language).

But still the question: what's the theoretically right answer?

One example I just came across: Probsteierhagen Wappen.png. In the image it's clearly a "oak branch fructed", but the blazon just says "oak branch" (Eichenzweig). What's the right category? --Slomox (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for my english, but the question is very useful. In my opinion, the categorization by images is allways incomplete and so unuseful. CoA of Probsteierhagen should be categorized by oak branch fructed of one, oak branch leaved of two, wolf rampant issuant, wolf with tongue of gules, wolf armed of gules, party per bend sinister, barry of 10 sinople and or, bend sinister wavy fimbriated, head of spade (?) and so on ad libitum.
But we categorized this CoA only by 2 categories. Categorization should made by blazon, but there are a lot of problems: the language of the blazon, its sintax (franch/italian style, german style, english style etc), heraldic skill of the writer etc. Further the composition of a blason is not compatible with the categories tree because it could be recurring that a category appears in more than one position into the blazon phrase. So I think really useful only the few categories specifying the different heraldic figures and fundamental heraldic ordinaries, where are IMHO unuseful the categories based on the colours. Sorry for the imprecision and lenght of teh statement. --Massimop (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Fields re-occurring[edit]

Wappen Einheitsgemeinde Biederitz.png

I won't stop the questions! ;-) What about this coat of arms (there are many similar examples): is it "3 acorns in heraldry" or "6 acorns in heraldry"? I have seen examples categorizing it under the lower number and I have the feeling that this is more accurate than adding them up when a field occurs twice (or even more often). But I would like some approval whether this feeling is right. What do you think? --Slomox (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This is an example of arduous categorization by images. The key elements of the Coa are field sinople with three acorns and field argent with a wavy fess azure. If they appear one or two times is not senseful: in some english marshalling coa those elements could appear many an many times, but the categorization does not should modified at any case. If the field in 4th position had be field gules with three acorns, I think the category should be 6 acorns, but only because the elements in 1st and 4th position are different.--Massimop (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
That's right. With marshalled shields like this, the different fields are actually individual arms of their own, so it makes sense to categorise only one field of a kind instead of adding up the charges to any total sum. De728631 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
For coats that are indeed marshalled (some quarterings are ‘original’ designs), and the component arms have categories here, ISTM the best approach would be to categorize only under the latter. Those coats in turn would have the charge-and-number categories, which would be unnecessary to repeat in any of their appearances in marshallings.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

1 bend vair(y)[edit]

Is there a difference between Category:1 bend vair and Category:1 bend vairy? --Slomox (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Vair is made by bell-like shape argent and azure; vairy has bell-like shape of other colours. --Massimop (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thank you! --Slomox (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

swords in saltire[edit]

We have Category:Crossed swords in heraldry (created 2010, but existed even longer before as Category:Crossed Swords in heraldry) and Category:2 swords in saltire (created 2016). The former is older, but the latter is the more correct name, I guess. Any objections against moving all files to Category:2 swords in saltire? --Slomox (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do object because crossed swords don't need to be in saltire. It may be a rare figure, by they could also be in the form of a regular cross, i.e. a horizontal and a vertical line crossing each other rectangularly. So Category:2 swords in saltire should actually be a subcategory of Category:Crossed swords in heraldry. Apart from that, where the swords ARE in saltire they should be moved to that category. De728631 (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree: in Coat of Arms of Dzerzhinsky District (Kaluga Oblast).png swords are not in saltire. --Massimop (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Your are obviously right. It is rare, exactly three images are left after I cleaned up the category, but they exist. --Slomox (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Alright, thank you for cleaning up. De728631 (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

unspecified type of x[edit]

I started looking through Category:Fish in heraldry (1200+ files when I started) and moving the files to more specific categories. While some coats of arms are blazoned like "[number] trout[s] [tincture]" others are just "[number] fish [tincture]". I feel the need to make a distinction between "it's a fish, but we haven't yet checked what kind of fish it is" and "we checked the blazon and it does not give any more details; it's just a fish".

At the moment all files in Category:1 fish in heraldry specify "fish" in their blazon and nothing more specific - based on the blazons in file descriptions or articles. I cannot say the same about Category:2 fish in heraldry because it contains all kinds of coat of arms with two fish.

So I feel I should move the files in Category:1 fish in heraldry to Category:1 fish in heraldry (type not specified in blazon) or something like that. But that category name looks odd. Any better ideas? Or should I just accept the fact that the Commons category system isn't made for distinctions like that?

The problem is not limited to fish. Another example would be Category:Ears in heraldry. Many blazons just say "ear" while others specify "wheat ear" or "rye ear". I observed that people who move files to subcategories often falsely put coats of arms depicting "rye ears" into "wheat ears" because those are much more common in heraldry than rye ears. --Slomox (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't go into details here. Especially when it comes to vernacular names, categorising species can become an ambiguous jungle. There is a reason why our taxonomic categories use the Latin name of the species as accepted by taxonomy instead of using the common name of a plant or animal. Even in heraldry there may be more than one name of a fish or bird or what have you, and considering translations from non-English blazons there is even more potential for errors. Instead you might want to categorise these charges according to the tincture. De728631 (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Categories like Trouts in heraldry, Salmons in heraldry and Eels in heraldry exist since 2007. I only started in 2018 but I have now made a few hundred "fish heraldry" related edits and it works just fine. I don't see more potential for errors than in any other area of Commons. There are plenty errors in all areas of Commons. Galore.
But tincture can be the next step when I'm done with number and species.
But the question was: Category:1 fish in heraldry has 124 files right now and for all of them I checked the blazon. I looked up whether it says "fish" ("Fisch", "vis", "fisk", "poisson" etc.) or something different. If it was something different it either went into other subcategories or stayed in Category:Fish in heraldry. Category:1 fish in heraldry is "clean" right now.
But what if tomorrow another user - unaware of what I did today - stumbles over the category Category:1 fish in heraldry and thinks "Oh, I should look through all of them to see whether they can be moved to more specific subcategories!"?
My concern is, that people might waste their time because I didn't document the fact, that I already sorted the category. --Slomox (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
The categorization of heraldic charges should be made either by type either by number. For the charge fish (and for other charges of the same kind: birds, animals, fruits, trees, etc) I think the first level category should be fishes in heraldry: in this category are to included second level categories 1 fish in heraldry (and subsequent 2 fishes, 3 fishes ...), salmons in heraldry (and similar pickerels in heraldry, dolphins in heraldry ...) and all the coa with fishes not identified. Every coa with any quantity of identified fishes should be categorized twice, by number and by type of fish. The coa with unidentified fishes should be categorized only by number (and obviously in the first level category).I think is not useful the categorization by colour. --Massimop (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Help with COA's shape[edit]

Hi, I have requested the undeletion of this file, the file is based in Rapido de Bouzas logo, and I think that it doesn't surpass COM:TOO, but the reason to delete it is because the shape of the COA is not simple. I have stated that the shape is a variation of a swiss shield, but the response is that the shape is "similar, but not very much. This is original shape and copyrightable". Could somebody add more information in that undeletion request about that shape to state if is it original or not, and if doesn't it surpase threshold of originality or yes? Thanks in advance, --Elisardojm (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

This project is not able to give information on that question, because the image is not a Coa (created and drawn with helardic rules) but it is a logo (image not heraldic, not modifiable, and subject to copyright). Any Coa could be drawn in different images, all of those are equivalent. A logo could'nt. That's all. --Massimop (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Castles/Fortresses/Towers[edit]

We have Category:Fortresses in heraldry, Category:Castles in heraldry and Category:Towers in heraldry. In theory the three are distinct things and should be discernible. But in practice - looking at the files in the categories - there is much confusion and many files could just as well be in one of the other two categories.

There are many national and regional special forms. Additionally the Wikidata items wikidata:Q1010645 ("fortress" in English) and wikidata:Q1724774 ("castle" in English) are confusing too. "fortress" is translated as "Burg" in German and "kasteel" in Dutch. "castle" is translated as "Kastell" in German and "burcht" in Dutch. Italian translates both as "castello". I'm at loss. The German Wikipedia articles de:Burg (Heraldik) and de:Kastell (Heraldik) make a clear distinction between the two, but I doubt that the same distinction works in other languages.

Any idea how to clear up the mess? --Slomox (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

In italian language could be agreed these different explanations:
a fortress is a great building destined to be a defense point; in this building is possibile the daily life of not military people;
a castle is a great building destined to host the daily life of a lot of people; this building could be able to have same security and defense capabilities;
a tower is a little building isolated (sighting tower, lighthouse, ecc) or essential part of a major building, without capability of autonomous defense (the tower, included in major building, with autonomous capabilities of defense - in italian language - is a mastio, french donjon).--Massimop (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Massively used coat of arms that is wrong[edit]

Moved from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard
The File:Coat of Arms of L'Aquila, Italy.svg is being used by over 300 articles, however it is wrong. The coat of arms is described as "D'argento all'aquila dal volo abbassato di nero, coronata, rostrata, linguata e armata d'oro; accostata dalla scritta P.H.S. in capo, e ai fianchi IMMOTA MANET", with "dal volo abbassato" being the error as this means wingtips down. See also the city's webpage for confirmation. I could fix it if it were a png file, but svg I do not use how to change. Therefore I would like to ask another editor to swap out the current eagle and insert one with the wingtips down. Thanks, Noclador (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I think eagle no. 9 from File:Aguilas heráldicas.svg would work in this case, which would even allow for keeping the current attribution. I could easily swap the figures if there are no objections from other editors. De728631 (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. If you can, please do it. Noclador (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Since nobody objected, I have now changed the attitude of the eagle. De728631 (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
That is why every official COA SHOULD have a source and not "Own work". -- User: Perhelion 11:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)