Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/archive/2012

Pending RfD

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

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

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. -- maxxl2 - talk 21:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably duplicating categories

How do you think, is there any sense in merge of these categories: Boats in heraldry and 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 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)

• AFAIK, tankers are not sailing vessels. Also, There's category Sailboats in heraldry with some large ships (e.g., a brigantine and even an armoured cruiser). So I propose a scheme like this:
  • Watercraft in heraldry
    • Boats in heraldry
      • Sailboats in heraldry
    • Ships in heraldry
      • Sailing ships in heraldry
• Can you explain me the difference between the lightning bolts and lightning flashes in British heraldry?
• Thank you beforehands. Ain92 (talk) 20:59, 20 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

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

• 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)

---

• Another discussion in this case: Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2012/10/Category:Heraldic_helmets_affronté -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 23:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Heraldic attitudes

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

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:

• Category:Crowns in heraldry move-> Category:Crowns as charge
• Categury:Crowns in heraldry cat-redirect -> Category:Heraldic crowns

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

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)

• A question: Where are the articles/descriptions of what is a en:Heraldist, fr:Héraldiste, es:Heraldista, sv:Heraldiker (all redirect to Heraldic) only de:Heraldiker and hu:Heraldikus still exists? (a indication of how far professionalism could be shapes here?). -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 01:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Simple question categorization tincture

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

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

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!

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

Category:Diapered in heraldry Category:Diapering in heraldry

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!

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

Party per pale/fess X and Y

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?

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