Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/archive/2011

File:Brasão de Galaretta-2.jpg

Any comment on licensing of this image? I'm not aware of any reason coats of arms should be any different than anything else, so this appears somewhat suspect.--Chaser (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm italian and my english is very poor. Can you explain in better manner which is the problem ? --Massimop (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

According to pt:Alfonso_de_Galarreta, this Bishop was born in 1957 and is still alive. So any copyright has not expired. Is there some other reason this would be public domain? Or is this a copyvio? I guess the coat of arms is no older than Alfonso de Galarreta, but I may be wrong about that.--Chaser (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The coat of arms is obviously old as the nomination to bishop. The problem is: the coat of arms is under copyright ?. The answer is: no isn't, if the Coa is a new design of the Coa established by the Church. If it is the official design it could be under copyright, but this rule seems be not applicable to the ecclesiastic heraldry: see the current use of the Pope's Coa. In many countries the Coa are excluded from copyright because of their use necessary for the identification of towns, families, people and so on. --Massimop (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Cross couped vs. Greek cross

Could somebody help me out and tell me what's the difference between Category:Crosses couped in heraldry and Category:Greek crosses in heraldry. I am having some difficulties when trying to categorize some CoAs as their Finnish blazon is defining them as Greek cross, but in en-blazon it has been translated to cross couped. --Care (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The greek cross has all the arms of equal lenght (i.e. [file:Blason Gaudiès (Ariège).svg]. Glossary of terms used in heraldry of James Parker tells: a couped cross ... It would also appear that this cross should be always drawn with its arms equal. Where the Complete guide to heraldry of A.C. Fox-Davies shows in fig 165 a cross couped which has the vertical arms some more lenght of the horizontal arms, like the crosses bottony, flory, fleuretté, moline and so on. Also the Encyclopedie of Diderot and D'Alembert shows a croix allaisée (tht is the couped cross) whit different arms at planche III fig. 155. The same in Usi, regole s tili in Araldica of C.A. von Volborth where in italian edition page 21 shows a croce scorciata (i.e. a cross couped) whit different lenght of vertical and horizontal arms (the vertical have the major lenght). So I think that the couped cross should show the same portion of field, at the end of any arm. --Massimop (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I thing that "couped cross" is an honourable ordinary (a normal cross but not reaching edges) while "Greek cross" is only a subordinarie. If the greek cross is the main charge, it look like the couped cross, in this case is better to tell it "couped cross". When there is several crosses, or when the cross is a littel one, we can use "crosslet" instead of "greek cross". This is valid only if the cross is regular. --Ssire (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, I believe I got it. It looks like that Finnish heraldic glossary has after all specific terms for both of them even though the difference is minor enough so that in the book I have they have used even the same picture to describe them both. --Care (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd draw a cross couped as an ordinary with each arm shortened by the same amount; this will generally leave them unequal. —Tamfang (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Stars in heraldry

Stars in heraldry

	four rays	five rays	six rays	seven rays	eight rays
1 star	1 four rays in heraldry	1 five rays in heraldry	1 six rays in heraldry	1 seven rays in heraldry	1 eight rays in heraldry
2 stars	2 four rays in heraldry	2 five rays in heraldry	2 six rays in heraldry	2 seven rays in heraldry	2 eight rays in heraldry
3 stars	3 four rays in heraldry	3 five rays in heraldry	3 six rays in heraldry	3 seven rays in heraldry	3 eight rays in heraldry
4 stars	4 four rays in heraldry	4 five rays in heraldry	4 six rays in heraldry	4 seven rays in heraldry	4 eight rays in heraldry
5 stars	5 four rays in heraldry	5 five rays in heraldry	5 six rays in heraldry	5 seven rays in heraldry	5 eight rays in heraldry
6 stars	6 four rays in heraldry	6 five rays in heraldry	6 six rays in heraldry	6 seven rays in heraldry	6 eight rays in heraldry
7 stars	7 four rays in heraldry	7 five rays in heraldry	7 six rays in heraldry	7 seven rays in heraldry	7 eight rays in heraldry
8 stars	8 four rays in heraldry	8 five rays in heraldry	8 six rays in heraldry	8 seven rays in heraldry	8 eight rays in heraldry
9 stars	9 four rays in heraldry	9 five rays in heraldry	9 six rays in heraldry	9 seven rays in heraldry	9 eight rays in heraldry

English: Just to inform you that nearly all the stars shields are categorized.

Français : Juste pour vous informer que presque tout les blasons à étoile sont catégorisés.

Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 17:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Great work. This type of categorisation is a great idea. It must be mind-numbing to actually trawl through all the images to do it though. Haha. Well done, VIGNERON.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Joli travail, Vigneron ! Je me suis permis d'ajouter ton tableau à la page Stars in heraldry. À ce propos, j'ai une question qui m'empêche de déplacer les images restantes dans la catégorie mère : les étoiles sont-elles comptées de manière globale, c'est-à-dire sur la totalité du blason, ou bien relativement à chaque composante, lorsqu'il est partitionné ? Par exemple, ce blason est-il à classer comme ayant 3 ou 6 étoiles ? J'aurai tendance à dire 6, mais pourquoi alors ce blason-ci est-il compté comme possédant 3 bandes, et non 6 ?

La catégorisation progresse, mais il reste hélas encore bien du travail  !

Cordialement,

--Bvs-aca (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Stars discussion

In a quartered (or otherwise partitioned) shield I think the different parts often have their own "meanings" so it makes sense to count the different parts separately. For example here I categorised as both "2 fesses" and "3 fesses" even if there are 10 fesses in the entire coat of arms, but later someone knew the meaning of the 3 fesses and changed the category to "Coats of arms of the House of Croÿ". /Ö 13:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Après réflexion, c'est effectivement la meilleure solution. Le décompte reste aussi simple, et on évite notamment les problèmes d'étoiles trop nombreuses.

Est-ce que quelqu'un pourrait rédiger un texte dans un anglais correct (le mien étant relativement lamentable ) pour que l'on puisse expliquer la démarche à suivre ? Je me chargerais de la version française, si personne ne le fait avant moi. On pourra le placer, soit sur les pages des catégories Stars in heraldry, Chevrons in heraldry, Bends in heraldry, … soit sur la page d'accueil du WikiProject. Ou bien même faire les deux à la fois.

Cordialement,

--Bvs-aca (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Français : Personnellement, j'ai plutôt eu tendance à me concentrer sur les blasons simples et à éviter les partitions. Notamment parce que je me posais la même question ;) La solution proposée me convient bien. Par contre, je n’ai ni le temps ni les compétences pour faire une traduction propre mais je peux aider si besoin (pour la relecture par exemple).

English: Personnaly, I have done the simplier coats of arms avoiding the partitions. Cos’ I had the same questions. This solution is fine for me. I haven’t the time nor the skills to do a proper translation but I ca help (eg. for the proofreading).

Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 17:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Or

Just to let you know that there is discussion ongoing at Commons:Categories for discussion#Category:Or (heraldry) if or should not be written with capital letter in category names. --Care (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Template to mark problematic coats of arms

I had proposed some time ago to create a template to mark problematic coats of arms (in particular pictures differing from blazons. I have (finally) created it: Template:Disputed coat of arms. See also the Category:Disputed coats of arms. BrightRaven (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

For CoAs with the blazon in several languages we should probably find a way of clearly and easily marking which the authoritative one is. I know that for some of my uploaded CoAs there are English translations of the blazon which are based on the visual image rather then translated from the Swedish. Thus if the image is updated (or if the translation is based on another visual image) the image may appear at odds with the English blazon (and thus being slapped by the above mentioned template or worse have the image "corrected") whilst still being correct according to the authoritative Swedish blazon. /Lokal_Profil 23:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Centaurs

Is there a difference between Category:Hipocentaurus coat of arms and Category:Centaurs in heraldry? Should not they be merged? BrightRaven (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Any idea what is the difference between centaur and hipocentaur in general? Even though I am interested in Greek mythology, this is the first time when I heard of hipocentaur. Google didn't find anything, and to me it looks like hipocentaur is just a name variant for regular centaur. --Care (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

En français en tout cas, hippocentaure est clairement un synonyme vieilli de centaure (voir Reverso par exemple), la redirection semble donc tout à fait justifiée.

Cordialement,

--Bvs-aca (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Catégorisation des couleurs et des fourrures

Salut à tous !
Je me demandais comment catégoriser, au niveau des couleurs (Coats of arms by tincture), les blasons qui contiennent des fourrures ou des couleurs secondaires. Ils existent en effet des catégories très précises pour chacune des combinaisons possibles avec les couleurs principales. On a donc aucun problème pour catégoriser ce genre de fichier par exemple. Mais comment alors catégoriser les fichiers avec une fourrure d'hermine, comme celui-ci ? La solution choisi de facto est celle de catégoriser ce genre des fichiers dans les catégories des deux couleurs de la fourrure (c'est le cas pour ce fichier, celui-ci ou encore celui-là, tous catégoriser dans Argent, gules, sable in heraldry, parfois également dans Ermine (fur)). Soit, cela résoudrait le problème des fourrures d'hermines et de vairs. Mais comment faire si le blason continent des couleurs secondaires, comme Orange ?
Personnellement, j'imagine qu'il faudrait placer ce genre d'image à la fois dans la catégorie correspondant à la fourrure ou la couleur secondaire, et dans la catégorie correspondant aux couleurs restantes, une fois la fourrure ou la couleur « négligée ». Mais ceci imposerait de placer, par exemple, ce fichier dans Argent and gules in heraldry et non dans Argent, gules, sable in heraldry, ce qui pourrait choquer ! Je me tourne donc vers le WikiProject pour pouvoir dégager un consensus clair .
Cordialement,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A mon avis ce fichier doit etre categorisé dans la Category:Argent, gules and hermine in heraldry, parce que la couleur sable n'est pas present. Aussi celui-ci devrait etre categorisè dans la Category: Gules and hermine in heraldry. Pour les couleurs sécondaires ils doivent etre categorisé comme tous les autres, sans aucune difference. --Massimop (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

English: Yep, but the problem is that we can't really create a new category for each combination of color or fur. That's why the category Argent, gules and hermine in heraldry doesn't exist at the moment, and will probably never exist. By the way, no matter if you speak english or italian rather than french .
Regards.

Français : Oui, mais le problème est que l'on ne peut pas vraiment créer une nouvelle catégorie pour chaque combinaison de couleur. C'est pourquoi la catégorie Argent, gules and hermine in heraldry n'existe pas pour le moment, et n'existera probablement jamais. Au fait, si tu préfères parler anglais ou italien plutôt que français, ca ne me pose pas de problème .
Cordialement,

--Bvs-aca (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Grazie per l'uso dell'italiano. Io credo che questo sistema di categorizzazione sia comunque troppo pesante e scomodo, ma non si può dire che uno stemma va inserito nella categoria argent and sable quando è fatto di solo armellino. Che senso ha trovare lo stemma della Bretagna quando si cercano stemmi con i colori argent and sable? E anche, che senso ha trovare uno stemma di vair quando si cerca nella categoria argent and azure? Ormai sono state fatte decine di categorie con varie combinazioni di colori, perché non fare anche argent, gules and hermine ? Sicuramente ci sono molti stemmi che potrebbero essere inseriti in questa categoria. --Massimop (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oui, je suis parfaitement d'accord avec toi au début. On pourrait tout à fait créer la catégorie Argent, gules and hermine, mais ce n'est qu'une solution particulière. Les cas du vair et de l'hermine étant en effet assez proche de celui des couleurs principales, il pourrait être envisageable de créer les catégories spécifiques. Mais il existe un très grand nombre de couleurs secondaires, et un nombre encore plus grand de fourrure (vairé de gueules et d'or, …). Il me semble qu'il est totalement impensable de créer une catégorie pour chacune de ces couleurs, et c'est là que réside le problème.

Cordialement,

--Bvs-aca (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sicuramente non si possono fare le categorie per tutti i casi di vaiato o di armellinato, ma li si potrebbe raggruppare nelle due categorie live vair e like hermine. Inoltre si dovrebbero fare le categorie per tutti i colori secondari (tra l'altro le categorie base già ci sono, e le categorie tipo argent, sable and orange sarebbero poche). In generale, però, io penso che questo sistema di categorizzazione sia abbastanza inutile: quando tutti gli stemmi saranno categorizzati, come si farà a trovare uno stemma nella categoria argent, gules, azure and sable che arriverà a contenere migliaia di stemmi ? Ciao --Massimop (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Un'altra considerazione. Parlando delle stelle, si è detto che gli stemmi inquartati (così come tutti quelli composti di molte parti) devono essere categorizzati per ogni campo separatamente (ad esempio: two stars e four stars contemporaneamente). Nel caso dei colori gli inquartati vanno in una categoria che comprende tutti i colori dell'inquartato o vanno in tante categorie separate, una per ogni campo? Ciao --Massimop (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Il est vrai que ces catégories ne tarderont pas à être surchargés. Ne pas catégoriser ces blasons ailleurs que dans Ermine (fur) ou Vair (fur), alors ? Ce serait certes le plus simple, mais cela va à l'encontre des principes de Commons. J'avoue ne plus trop savoir que penser.

En ce qui concerne la prise en compte des partitions, c'est encore un autre problème. Les pièces ou les meubles sont clairement propres à chaque partie, le choix fait semble donc le plus judicieux. En revanche, pour les couleurs, je crois que le but des catégories est différent : il s'agit surtout d'une catégorisation visuelle, en quelque sorte. Mais évidemment, l'autre point de vue est tout aussi légitime, c'est pourquoi il faut se baser sur un consensus, et c'est de facto celui d'une catégorisation en fonction de l'ensemble des couleurs du blason. Le changer serait long et laborieux, mais s'il y a un réel intérêt, pourquoi pas !

Cordialement,

--Bvs-aca (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Catégorisation des bandes

Bonjour !
Dans la catégorie Bends in heraldry, on trouve à la fois une catégorie regroupant les blasons par nombre de bandes (Shields by number of bends) et une catégorie regroupant les cotices (Bendlets in heraldry). Le problème est qu'au bout de quatre bandes sur un même écu, en français au moins en tout cas, les bandes deviennent des cotices. Qu'en est-il en anglais ? La catégorie 5 bends in heraldry a-t-elle un sens ?
Cordialement,
--Bvs-aca (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about similar questions with pales and pallets some time ago. The existing categories for 2, 3, and 4 pallets/pales use the word "pale". And since en.wikipedia said the pallet is a thin variant of the pale, I concluded that the name Category:5 pales in heraldry was probably not completely wrong. And if it was not a good choice, hopefully someone who knows better will correct it.

en:Ordinary (heraldry)#Diminutives says "When a coat of arms contains two or more of an ordinary, they are nearly always blazoned (in English) as diminutives of the ordinary" (although without citing a source). So maybe "pallets"/"bendlets" is a better category name when there are more of them. /Ö 19:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Mixing different kinds of categories

We categorise coats of arms both by who they belong to and by what is shown in the coat of arms. Sometimes these categories are mixed. This often puts coats of arms in categories in which they do not really belong. Is that a good idea? Is it not better to categorise every coat of arms seprately by the elements it includes?
Look at for example Category:Coats of arms of the House of Bernadotte. It is categorised as "Bridges in heraldry" because many of the COAs include the bridge from the original coat of arms of Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte. But some of the Bernadotte COAs does not include the bridge, and are incorrectly categorised. It can get even stranger when the categories are in many levels. No Bernadotte COA is "Semy of bees", but all of them are included in that category through "French empire princely shields". /Ö 19:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should not categorize this way, except if all the files in the category respect the criterion. If it is not the case, I think we should categorize each file separately (even if it takes more time than simply categorizing the parent category). In some cases, maybe we could create categories like Category:Coats of arms of the House of Bernadotte with bridges or Category:Bridges in coats of arms of the House of Bernadotte. Another example is Category:Coats of arms of Sardinia, in which I have withdawn some categories (Category:Argent a cross gules, Category:Moor heads in heraldry, etc.), and created instead Category:Cross of Alcoraz in heraldry, which has a clear definition. BrightRaven (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that completely. If category does not match with all CoAs, it does not belong there but to individual files. --Care (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think categories such as Category:Coats of arms of the House of Bernadotte with bridges would be useful. It's better to make a clear distinction between what the CoA depicts and whom it represents. For me the two are different trunks of the category tree. I consider it less of a problem to have many files in one category than a category filled with subcategories which are not related to the topic. /Lokal_Profil 23:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now fixed at least some of these. --Care (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is still done. For example File:Blason comte fr Alencon.svg was removed from "Semé-de-lis" because (I assume) it is in Category:Coat of arms of the Capetian counts of Alençon in Category:Coats of arms of the House of Valois which is in Category:Semé-de-lis. So Semé-de-lis is supposed to also apply to content in subcategories.
A contrary exmple is Category:Coats of arms of Oise which was added to "Semé-de-lis". But the subcategory Category:Coats of arms of cities in Oise‎ has only a few Semé-de-lis coats of arms, so clearly it should not apply to the subcategory.
(Both these examples are edits by User:Jimmy44 so I would like to see his opinions about this. Unforrunately I can't write French.) /Ö 10:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Coat of arms and the public

This is a question primarily aimed to the people who regularly draw arms for municipalities etc. which actively use their own (copyrighted) drawings. This is what I do for Swedish CoAs and what frequently happens is that newspapers/municipalities/authorities complain about "how Wikipedia is misrepresenting their 'logo'". Also it occasionally happens that organisations etc. use the Wikipedia drawing instead of the "official" one Each time follows the explanation of the differences between logos and coat of arms and between blazons and the graphical representations thereof.

So my question is whether this is something which others have also encountered (fr.wiki uses their own arms for municipalities unless I misremember) or if it is a Sweden only problem.

Secondly whereas {{Coat of arms}} is quite big and bulky and mainly focuses on copyright I was wondering whether something like {{Coa Sweden}} is actually more useful in terms of helping downstream users of the images. /Lokal_Profil 14:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree: the swedish template is correct, explicative and useful, more than template {{Coat of arms}}. So no-one municipal administration could complain but should be able to recognize the difference between Coa and logo. --Massimop (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Heraldic elements in categories

Do we have any common guidelines for categorizing SVG elements supposed to be used for heraldic presentations? I had a case where an user re-added coat of arms -related categories for an element he had separated from a flag. Personally, I think this kind of elements should not be added to categories like Coats of arms of Finland but at most to categories like Category:SVG coat of arms elements as it is clearly not a coat of arms, just one element, which could be part of coat of arms. Otherwise basically all the elements could be added into any common coats of arms -category. --Care (talk) 09:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Retry - please contribute

As this item is escalating into revert war, I would really appreciate if all of you participating to this wikiproject could give your opinion on this. I have created Category:Badges of Finland for some Finnish heraldic badges, which are following heraldic design principles, but which are not considered in Finland to be coat of arms as they do not have shield or blazon. However, there is another opinion that they should be categorized as Category:SVG coats of arms of Finland and Category:Coats of arms of Finland as well, former being the subcat of latter. In category tree all these three categories will meet at Category:Heraldry of Finland. Please... give me your opinion if this kind of heraldic figures should be categorized as coat of arms as well, or if they should appear only in badge category. --Care (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The elements should be categorized only as Badges of Finland: they are not coats of arms. --Massimop (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Emblems vs. Coats of Arms

In Europe, do you consider 'coat of arms' and 'emblem' as synonymous? --Care (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi !

Not really, I think : a coat of arms can be an emblem, but an emblem isn't necessary a coat of arms.

Why this surprising question ?

Regards,

--Bvs-aca (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This relates to previous topic. I was claimed that emblems and coat of arms are synonymous - which I believe is true at least to some extent in case of North American heraldry. Based on this an user is categorizing some Finnish emblems and heraldic elements as coats of arms. At least here - like you said - emblems can be heraldic, but heraldist would most probably feel insulted if his CoA is entitled just as an emblem. Thanks, --Care (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Good question, my thoughts are that a coat of arms is a type of emblem, but they are definitely not synonymous. A coat of arms is a product of heraldry, which has its own set of rules and laws regulating it. Although an emblem can contain heraldic elements it is not necessarily a coat of arms, because it has more elements or does not follow the 'rules' of heraldry. Furthermore coats of arms are almost always issued by a heraldic authority (College of Arms, Lord Lyon and Canadian Heraldic Authority, etc.) or by a monarch. However an emblem can be issued by any authority (Governments and institutions), usually to represent itself. Such as State Seals and National symbols etc., most commonly in North America as you say, but also in the rest of the world, excluding Europe. As a heraldist, I wouldn't feel insulted at all- all coat of arms are emblems to an extent, however coat of arms usually contains more baggage and issues in relating to its issue and use, than an emblem. Sodacan (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent comment. I believe the difference between us and UK is that our heraldry is relatively young, and while questioning centuries old traditions is almost - well - out of question in UK, we have seen here in past few years that government bodies, companies and municipalities are seeking to replace their heraldic emblems with more 'trendy' ones. Sometimes I am reading between the lines that our heraldists are not too happy to get their work compared against of that of graphical designers. --Care (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. But as someone who considers himself both a graphics designer and heraldist, I don't see why they would be particularly unhappy. But there is a real and important difference between the two, which should be understood:

In heraldry, everything: colour, shapes and beasts are recorded and described in a Blazon; which is a code written in half English/French. All images are derived from this code, not from any image. For example the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom, is a universally recognisable emblem representing the UK. Here are two examples: here is one on the gates of Buckingham Palace and another version used by the Britannica Encyclopedia. Both are heraldically identical, but to most people they look very different. This is because heraldry allows the artist to have space for artistic interpretations and variations, as long as it does not violate the blazon. At the College of Arms in London, there is an archive of books dating back centuries, recording every coat of arms ever issued by the British monarch to his/her subjects. Yet most of these books contain not a single picture, just texts- this is because heraldry is created not out of any single picture, but a description of it.

An emblem, on the other hand (or a logo even) is a very specific artistic depiction used in branding. Where, any body who wants to use the image must depict it exactly. For example: this diagram here shows the construction and measurement of Apple Inc.'s logo. This allows no artistic interpretation, variation or creative input whatsoever. It is a brand image in which every curve and feature must be replicated.

Hope this goes some way in explaining the difference between the two. I do not personally prefer one to the other, since they are used for different things. However I often feel that heraldry is better since it has a much more timeless quality to it. And as an artist it gives me much more room and space to explore and put my mark on things. An example is the Coat of arms of the City of London, which was granted in 1381, quite possibly by King Henry IV. It is still use by the City to this day, however it has been recently redesigned to give it a more 'modern' and 'trendy' look. The new minimalistic and futuristic depiction (which I think is very beautiful) however does not at all distract or take away anything from the traditional depiction. Sodacan (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sodacan is an heraldic Bible: no further explication is necessary. --Massimop (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What can be categorized under SVG coats of arms of country?

I am looking for opinions what kind of SVG drawings can be categorized as SVG coat of arms of some specific country. Obviously SVG-drawings of coats of arms approved in that particular country, but can there be something else like individual elements from CoAs? We have Category:SVG coat of arms elements, but what's the relationship between these two? --Care (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

User:CORNELIUSSEON et la catégorisation

Français : Bonjour.

Quelqu'un pourrait-il expliquer le principe de la catégorisation à User:CORNELIUSSEON (je l'aurai bien fait moi-même, mais mon niveau d'anglais ne me le permet pas). En effet, CORNELIUSSEON catégorise les blasons qu'il importe par blasonnement, conséquence : 1 figure/catégorie (donc aucun intérêt de la catégorie) et des intitulés de catégorie interminables (je voudrais bien savoir comment il ferait pour cette image !!! ).

Florilège

• Category:Heraldic crest descriptions ;
• Category:On a wreath of the colors Argent and Gules, Virtus treading on Tyranny, Proper ;
• Category:Gules, two pallets Argent, a saltire Azure fimbriated of the second, overall a fleur-de-lis Or ;
• Category:Argent issuant from base four mountains Tenné, spanning each peak a flash Gules, in chief a bear's head erased Sable ;
• Category:Per fess Gules and Argent in chief a lion passant Or and in base a kris and kampilan saltirewise of the first hilted Sable ;
• Category:Or, a bend Azure between a Moro kris paleways point up Sable, and a rattlesnake coiled to strike Proper ;
• Category:Or, on a pale embattled azure pierced by a sabre gules a cannon reversed of the field and thereon a sabre and a bayonet saltirewise and an arrow palewise all points down of the third ;
• Category:Gules, a crocodile statant in pale, head to chief holding between its jaws a fish fesswise Or ;
• Category:Tenné, a dragon passant Or ;
• Category:Vert, on a cross argent, a tower of the field; on a chief or a bend gules.

Cordialement,--Jimmy44 (talk) 05:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Je croyais me souvenir que cela lui avait déjà été expliquer, apparemment non…

Apparemment, il n'y a pas que la catégorisation qu'il faudrait lui expliquer…

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Moor heads in heraldry

Can this please be changed by someone who has the authority. It should be Moor's head. That is to say one Moor's head or in the plural, two Moors' heads. "Moor heads" sounds as if the poor Moor might have dozens of heads, which is very difficult when he is usually not portrayed with a body! Kiltpin (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Crises in heraldry

This is obviously a mis-spelling. Can this please be changed to "Crosses in heraldry"? Kiltpin (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Giro720 (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Stigmatisation in heraldry

Can this please be changed to "Stigmata in heraldry"? Stigmatisation refers to the making of the wounds, whereas Stigmata refers to the wounds themselves. Kiltpin (talk) 18:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Signum

Why is this category included in Project Heraldry? I do not know where it belongs, but it has nothing to do with heraldry. Kiltpin (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Streamers

Why is this in the category "Heraldry", when it has nothing to do with heraldry? It should be in a category dealing with "vexillology", which is the study of flags! Kiltpin (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:War in heraldry

Can this please be changed to "Weapons" rather than "War". None of the shields depict a war, but they do depict weapons. For all we know they are being used for target practice! Kiltpin (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Giro720 (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

COA cardinal Norman Thomas Gilroy.svg

I've just uploaded that file. May I ask someone to check if "heraldically" correct? It's based on photo of card Gilroy's grave: 1. --Winiar^✉ 09:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

This style of dolphin is becoming very popular here, but it is not traditional and in truth I don't know how it should be blazoned. It is not embowed (ie. bent in a curve), nor is it naiant (swimming), nor hauriant (with head upwards, as if drawing air). It is a bit of one and a bit of the other. I have just checked the URL and it is an accurate representation, but I still don't know how it should be blazoned. I have checked 'Boutell's' and it only gives the three attitudes that I have listed. The rest of the blazon is quite easy, but I am stuck on the dolphins. Sorry Kiltpin (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

In italian heraldry this kind of dolphin is ondeggiante in palo (en:entwined around/bowed embowed, fr:ondoyant, es:tortillante) and boccheggiante (en:pamé, fr:pâmé, es:pasmado). Some document tell Cardinal Gilroy bore as his arms: the arms of the Archdiocese of Sydney impaling argent (silver), three dolphins azure (blue), fined or (gold), two and one; and for motto: Christus Lux Mea. (Christ is My Light). (42) (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/ article on George Cardinal Pell: creation of the seventh Cardinal of the Australian Church)--Massimop (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The closest translation I have found (that fits), is wavy. So I have added this blazon: Azure on a cross Argent four mullets of eight points Gules (for the Archdiocese of Sydney) impaling Argent three dolphins wavy Azure finned Gules (for Gilroy). Kiltpin (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Coats_of_arms_by_Otto_Hupp

Could someone help out here please? → Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Mass del Category:Coats_of_arms_by_Otto_Hupp -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 15:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

Greetings,

I would very much appreciate if one of your talented designers could spare a moment of their time to create a coat of arms with the following blazon:

Party per pale, the first azure, half a chevron or, the second or, half a chevron azure.

Thank you very much in advance.--89.204.153.229 17:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean, Party per pale Azure and Or a chevron counterchanged? Kiltpin (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Half a chevron is a chevronel, so it shoud have two chevronels, one (or) on the dexter partition and one (azure) on the sinister partition. --Massimop (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Could this CoA be useful for your request?

• 
  Party per pale, the first azure, half a chevron or, the second or, half a chevron azure

--Massimop (talk) 09:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no! A half a chevron is not a chevronel. A chevronel is a chevron, but half the width. Your description is a bendlet. The request is for a dimidiation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimidiation Kiltpin (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Could be, but [en:wiki)] in the para Diminutives of the chevron tells: chevronel: "half" a chevron. Otherwise as you told the blazoning should be Party per pale Azure and Or a chevron counterchanged. --Massimop (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is very badly written and needs to be revised. A chevronel is half the width of a chevron as a bendlet is half the width of a bend. Kiltpin (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that this is what the OP requested:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Request_1.png/506px-Request_1.png

Kiltpin (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this just "a chevron per pale countercharged?" or thereabouts? --NinjaKid (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The blazon is: Per pale Azure and Or a chevron counterchanged.

We need more information on the coat of arms: the name of the family, any picture and so on. In particular we need know wich is the origin ef the blazoning. --Massimop (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Coats of arms and emblems

Hello. I think we should make a difference in the categories between the traditional coats of arms (i.e. symbols on shields) and the various other symbols used to represent countries or organizations (for example this). I suggest to put the latter in Category:Emblems and its subcategories (the definition of emblem is "a design or picture that represents a country or an organization"). I think also we should add a warning in the CoA categories to remind that they only contain traditional coats of arms. BrightRaven (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree that something needs to be done, I don't know that this is it. Under Category:Emblems are many depictions that we in the UK would call badges - certainly all the military ones. All British military badges (ships, regiments, stations, bases, squadrons) are all controlled, designed and authorised by the College of Arms. All the American depictions were designed by their Department of Heraldry. The problem with Category:Emblems is that it is a 'catch-all' - everything could end up inside and most won't be anything to do with heraldry.

I think I would prefer to see a <:Category:Badges> and <:Category:Depictions used as a coat of arms> (or words to that effect)

Kiltpin (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)