Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/archive/2013

Creating a new category

Crosslink / info: There is a question about here: Com:VP#Commons:_Categories -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 16:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Cathy Richards

Help! Can someone with some authority look at User:Cathy Richards , please. She seems intent in removing categories, including vital ones. I took her to task over the last batch and she reverted them, but today she is starting again. This seems to be a hobby with her. Please someone help. Kiltpin (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Coats of arms on pavement

Coat of arms in the Grandmaster's Palace in Valletta

Hi! I have trouble categorising pictures such as this one. First, it's made of pavement. Should it go into Category:Mosaics of coats of arms‎ or should I create a new category? Second, should it go into Category:Ecclesiastical heraldry of Malta as it's probably the COA of a grand master? Thanks in advance. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

To me it does'nt look like pavement but like a majolica. Therefore i would prefer Category:Mosaics of coats of arms‎ and as this image may be the CoA of Prince of Heitersheim, Grand Prior of the Maltese order in the Holy Roman Empire it belongs to Category Sovereign Military Order of Malta. --maxxl2 - talk 11:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's the CoA of Rohan. I added this to the description. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 07:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Hello, we have a coat-of-arms here, for the family of Nivelet. If anyone can help to create a drawing, please do and then drop me a note, so that we can use it in el:Ιωάννης Α΄ ντε Νιβελέ. --FocalPoint (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Escutcheon COM:OVERWRITE

Is a change after a reference a Minor (I mean) or a Major change? Example:[1] -- ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ ℗ 17:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Chiefs ermine in heraldry vs Category:Ermine spots in chiefs

These two are a bit ambiguous imho. Where do we draw the line between ermine spots and a full field of ermine? Obviously, two visible spots supercharged with something may be counted as single spots, but in general I suggest we take "Chiefs ermine in heraldry" as the parent category and treat "Ermine spots in chiefs" as a subcategory of the former. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No. "Chiefs ermine in heraldry" implies the presence of a field with lines of ermine spots that are integer, interlaced with other lines of ermine spots that are truncated by the edge lines of the field. Ermine spots in chiefs implies the presence of only integer spots and no one spot truncated. is ermine with a chief gules, where is argent whit 21 ermine spots, a chief gules. --Massimop (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• As far as English heraldry is concerned, both these shields are the same. For the simple reason that more than 10 charges on a field are considered 'semy'. Unless it is important to the blazon that there be an exact number of spots to represent an exact number of other things, then 11+ spots would be just ermine (the fur). These ermine spots (like all semy charges), might be cut by the edge of the field, but need not be so. It is artistic choice.
• It is all down to the blazon. If the blazon states 'Eleven ermine spots, 6&5', I expect to see a full chief with two rows of spots. But if I did not know what the blazon was, I would blazon it 'Ermine'.
• I am tending to agree with De728631 - provided we have a blazon. Kiltpin (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Right, unless we have a blazon that determines a specific number of spots we should sort it to "ermine". @Massimo, the shields you showed have no ermine whatsoever in chief. I'm talking about vs De728631 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My notation is based on A GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN HERALDRY by JAMES PARKER: Semé, (fr.), sometimes written semy: means that the field is sown or strewed over with several of the charges named, drawn small and without any reference to the number. Various synonyms are used by heraldic writers. In a roll temp. HEN. III., poudré is most frequently used, meaning precisely the same; in another roll plein de in found. More modern writers used such terms as aspersed, replenished with, and two old French terms averlye and gerattie are also given in glossaries. Some writers use sans nombre, and a very fanciful distinction has been made between this and semé, namely, that when all the charges are drawn entire sans nombre should be used, but if the outline of the field or any ordinary cuts any of the charges that then semé should be used. In the case of semé of crosslets, billets, bezants, the special term crusily, billetty, and bezanty, already noted in their proper places, are preferable. Platy, hurty, and tortoily, are not so. In italian heraldry seminato is the same of previous semy. With this meaning is a chief ermine where is a chief argent, 5 ermine spots. --Massimop (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

@ De728631, yes and no. No blazon and more than 10, to my mind equals Ermine. Less than 10 are ermine spots. Kiltpin (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Disputed Arms

I was looking at and I noticed an pattern, most of the time there is no discussion, which is fine, but there is also no action. Feel free to correct these arms. Tinynanorobots (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Bishop Eva Brunne

Can someone create an image of the coat of arms of Eva Brunne, Bishop of Stockholm? The coat of arms can be found here. Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Coats of arms images without a license: needs history check

There are several hundred images in Category:Coats of arms images without a license: needs history check. All (or most)) of those files do not have a license and are in danger of being deleted. Many of the files lost their license due to vandalism, incorrect transfer form local wikipedia, mistakes by well meaning editors, etc. (see instructions in Category:Media_without_a_license:_needs_history_check). An assistance of users familiar with copyright laws related to Heraldry, would be appreciated if they could help with either adding proper licenses or tagging the files with {{No license}} templates. --Jarekt (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to help with that. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Chequy chiefs and Category:Chiefs counter-compony

Hi,

Could someone explain the difference(s) beetween Category:Chequy chiefs and Category:Chiefs counter-compony ?

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 08:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess Category:Chiefs counter-compony holds only such shields with two rows of fesses chequy while Category:Chequy chiefs holds the others with more rows. --Maxxl2 - talk 11:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

None of the coats of arms in Category:Chiefs counter-compony has "chief counter-compony" in their blazons. The French ones are all "au chef échiqueté [... de deux tire]" (chequy [... with two rows]) (except File:Blason Champlin.svg, which seems to be missing a word in the blazon). There are also a German COA with "geschachtem Schildhaupt", a Spanish COA which I think says something about chequy, and a Czech COA which I don't understand at all. Therefor I think it is unnecessary with a category for chiefs counter-compony and all images can be moved to Category:Chequy chiefs. /Ö 21:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

A glossary of terms used in Heraldry of James Parker uses:

• gobony, said of an ordinary composed of small squares of two tinctures alternately in one row;
• counter-compony if there be two rows;
• chequy if there are more of two rows.

So, because of the categories description are in english languages there shoud be three categories: chief gobony, chief counter-compony, chief chequy, for one, two and more of two rows.--Massimop (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

According to A Complete Guide to Heraldry, 'gobony' seemingly doesn't have to be square. See File:Complete Guide to Heraldry Fig724.png where "a bordure gobony azure and argent" has been drawn rather flat in height as compared to the width of the cells. So this would correspond to gestückt in German. De728631 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Horns in crest: hunting horns, bull horns, "trunks"

It occured to me that there are several ambiguous depictions in Category:Post and hunting horns in crest that should probably better be sorted into Category:Bull horns in crest or even simply into Category:Animal body parts in crest. E.g. this Polish COA has been blazoned by Rietstap as "D'or à deux prob[oscides] ..." (p. 246 Chorinski) i.e. "Or two trunks...". In the glossary of his armorial he writes furthermore: "Proboscides. Trompes d'éléphant. Les Allemands portent fréquemment en cimier des cornes de buffle, qu'on représente communément, quoique à tort, sous la forme de proboscides." (Proboscides. Elephant trunks. The Germans frequently wear buffalo horns in crest, which usually, although erroneously, represent the form of trunks.) The Hungarian term seems to be elefántormány, elephant trunks, too.

According to de:Büffelhörner, these "buffalo horns" originate from hunting trophies and were depicted as proper peaked horns in early heraldry. In later times though, the form of the buffalo horns became more and more abstract which included replacing the points with rings, so that the items looked rather like a musical horn with a mouthpiece although they were meant to represent animal horns. Category:Bull horns in crest links to this WP article and the associated term, so I wonder where to sort the predominantly Polish arms with this type of crest that are left in Category:Post and hunting horns in crest, because a hunting horn in crest is usually pretty obvious and should have been blazoned as such. De728631 (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

As to the COA of Choryński, although a Polish family, the arms were originally granted by the Autrian realm [1] which used German heraldic traditions, so I've moved all of these to "Bull horns". De728631 (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Kites in heraldry

Six of the seven files currently at Category:Kites in heraldry do not show the forked tail of kites, and I suspect would be better categorised at Category:Buzzards in heraldry (the exception being File:Znak-rajec1.jpg, which does clearly show a kite). Unless there is any clear history of kites being intended in these coats of arms, they would best be recategorised. Anyone know if kites are the intended birds in any of them? - MPF (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)