Open main menu


Contents

Tip: Categorizing imagesEdit

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | +/−


Hello, Lobsterthermidor!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]
[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

File:NorthMoltonFromSE.jpgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the   Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 00:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct licence now added, omitted by oversight. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC))

File:DeRaleighArmsOwnWork.JPGEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the   Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Licence now added. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC))

Lord RolleEdit

Hi there, I've created a Category:John Rolle, 1st Baron Rolle. Should you have more images of this gentleman, please sort them into this category too. See also Category:Rolle family. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Useful addition, noted. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC))

RetirementEdit

 
This user is, of their own volition, no longer active on Wikimedia Commons.
This is not indicative of breaking any Wikimedia policies.

Lobsterthermidor has moved on. Over and out. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

Lobsterthermidor returnedEdit

Hi! Lobsterthermidor has returned to tie up a few loose ends. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC))

Copyright status: File:HughRadcliffOfStepney KillertonHouse.jpgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:HughRadcliffOfStepney KillertonHouse.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Can't see any problem, please be more specific, thanks, (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC))
Someone fixed it already. Thanks for checking. --Jarekt (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:SirJohnArundell OfLanherneBrass1545 StColumbMajor.pngEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:SirJohnArundell OfLanherneBrass1545 StColumbMajor.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, my oversight, now fixed. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC))

NutwellEdit

There is only one Nutwell on the east bank of the Exe Estuary - namely Nutwell Court in Woodbury CP. I don't quite get why you tried to separate this one concept in two and certainly see no need for BLOCK CAPITALS to say its ambiguous when it isn't! I've redirected Nutwell, Lympstone to Nutwell, Woodbury as that reflects the reality of the matter.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the two houses are totally different. I know a fair bit about Nutwell Court, Woodbury, rebuilt in 1799 from a mediaeval house, which is NOT the smaller, white, crenellated building in the images remaining in Category:Nutwell, Lympstone, which I know nothing about, except that it is not "Nutwell Court". Apologies for my capitals. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC))
Ah I see the issue. Nutwell is an estate, not just the country house at its centre (which is Nutwell Court). There is only the one Nutwell estate - in Woodbury parish between the village of Lympstone and the Marine base. Nutwell, Lympsone, does not exist. The smaller building is The Belvedere, which is within the Nutwell estate. See these records for Nutwell Court, Belvedere and Nutwell Park.
Nutwell, Woodbury, is the overarching name for the entire estate and all buildings within it, if you want to make a distinction between the house and its estate, then Category:Nutwell, Woodbury and Category:Nutwell Court, Woodbury are needed.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
The confusion has arisen due to the uploader of the photos of the Belvedere naming his/her photos incorrectly as "Nutwell Court". Quite possibly the Belvedere and/or the pub (former "Nutwell Lodge"??) is situated in Lympstone parish, I don't know. It's a large estate and may straddle parish boundaries. The Court is definitely in Woodbury parish, but a long way from the church on the extremity. I think I'll create 3 new sub-cats, more or less as you suggest, all under "Nutwell, Woodbury": "Nutwell Court", "Nutwell Belvedere" & "Nutwell Lodge". I'll check that last name. OK? (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC))
That makes sense, but its worth mentioning the modern estate is wholly within Woodbury, as can be verified on OS maps. Its possible that we will have photos of the estate - its ponds and parkland - after all. As for the bad file names, I will correct them this evening.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Job done, thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC))

Copyright status: File:GarterPlateJohnRussell1stEarlOfBedford1539.pngEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:GarterPlateJohnRussell1stEarlOfBedford1539.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Licence tag now added. Thanks. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC))

Copyright status: File:LoveringImpalingDodderidge Hudscott Chittlehampton.JPGEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:LoveringImpalingDodderidge Hudscott Chittlehampton.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Now fixed, thanks (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC))

File:NewnhamArms.PNGEdit

 
File:NewnhamArms.PNG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hchc2009 (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:SirWilliamStrode 1637MuralMonument StMary'sChurch Plympton.JPGEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:SirWilliamStrode 1637MuralMonument StMary'sChurch Plympton.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the oversight, licence now added to file (own work) & "no licence" tag removed.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC))

Country housesEdit

Hi 3 separate messages, hence 3 separate threads: when creating cat for a country house, please place it at its full name as this avoids any potential ambiguity. eg Category:Mothecombe is a small hamlet, best known for its beach, and is not just the house. Furthermore, the houses are generally best known by the full name.

If you look at well known properties, like Category:Blenheim Palace or Category:Chatsworth House, the main category for the estate is the house's cat, and things in the broader estate like the gardens are a subcat. I'd suggest this is best approach in general, so the structure for Mothecombe House would be: Holbeton (parish) -> Mothecombe (hamlet) -> Mothecombe House (estate) -> Mothecombe House gardens.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Noted, thanks(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC))

PlymptonEdit

Plympton St Mary was a large rural CP, and has long been abolished, which covered the land that is now modern Plympton (less St Maurice), plus a large chunk of land now in Sparkwell. The southern area of the parish is now a densely populated urban landscape, and that is best described in modern terms like Woodford, Colebrook and Chaddlewood. To add to the confusion the current ward of Plympton St Mary is much smaller than the former parish, for instance St Mary's church is not in Plympton St Mary ward.

The category scheme reflects the current situation, so I've moved Newnham to Sparkwell. As for Plympton St Mary - I've redirected it to Plympton. Its not a helpful subdivision in the modern urban area, especially with confusion between the former parish and modern ward.

In contrast, Plympton St Maurice is the ancient town, and it still has a distinct identity within the urban area - so Category:Plympton St Maurice is worthwhile.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Noted, thanks(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC))

File:SiteOfRaleighHousePiltonDevon.PNGEdit

This file is incorrectly licensed. As it is a derivative of a cc-by-sa-2.0 licensed work, your work must be licensed under a cc-by-sa license too and you cannot release to public domain. I cannot change the license on the file for you.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Point taken, licence amended accordingly, thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC))

Copyright status: File:PercyImpalingSpencer OfSpencerCombe Crediton Devon PetworthHouse.PNGEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:PercyImpalingSpencer OfSpencerCombe Crediton Devon PetworthHouse.PNG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Licence now added, thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC))

File:AffetonCastle RobertCutts.jpgEdit

 
File:AffetonCastle RobertCutts.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Josve05a (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

... in heraldryEdit

Hello - if a category is named "... in heraldry" it means that only coats of arms may be grouped therein. SVG coat of elements shall not be assigned to it as they don't show a shield. Therefore I reverted your categorisations of the merlettes. -- Maxxl² - talk 16:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're correct here, I can't see why an heraldic charge can not be included in "... in heraldry" cats when shown on its own not on a shield. It is "used in heraldry" is it not? Are you following some Wikicommons guideline perhaps? The category is not called "... coats of arms ...", in which case I would agree with you.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC))
FYI just read the warning at the parent category and pls stop messing up a longtime proven structure. -- Maxxl² - talk 12:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Please do not use incivil language. The category was/is in a real mess because it mixes up two totally different heraldic figures: the English martlet and the French merlette. I am trying to disentangle the two varieties, which will not be a simple task. You have misinterpreted the "warning" above, which reads: "WARNING: In this context, when a category says "Category:Xyz in heraldry", it means ...in shield, not ...in crest or something external ornaments". This therefore allows for heraldic elements which usually appear in shields (as opposed to on crests or in supporters or elsewhere) to be shown alone. It does not mean "shields only can appear in this category".(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC))

File:MohunsOttery Gatehouse Luppitt Devon.jpgEdit

 
File:MohunsOttery Gatehouse Luppitt Devon.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Nilfanion (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:MohunsOttery Luppitt Devon FrontDoor.jpgEdit

 
File:MohunsOttery Luppitt Devon FrontDoor.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Nilfanion (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File:MorlandJohnGreigByOliviaBryden.jpgEdit

 
File:MorlandJohnGreigByOliviaBryden.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hchc2009 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

chevronEdit

Ermine spots on chevrons is not same of chevrons Ermine. the first are a charge and a second are fur. (excuse my english) --Chatsam (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Pas de problème, merci. Disagree, chevrons ermine are blazoned "A chevron ermine", not "on a chevron argent X ermine spots". I have never seen the latter as a blazon in an authoritative source. If you can tell me otherwise (French or English heraldry), I will be able to agree with you.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC))

File:GrocersCompany Arms.gifEdit

বাংলা | Deutsch | English | Español | Bahasa Indonesia | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Português | svenska | 中文 | +/−


Hello! Thank you for uploading File:GrocersCompany Arms.gif to the Wikimedia Commons. I noticed that when you uploaded from another Wikimedia project, you left out some important information, or copied it incorrectly. In the future, please consider using CommonsHelper, a tool which automates the process of moving files over. Thank you,

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Some advice?Edit

Hello Lobsterthermidor, I just completed illustrating Foster's Some Feudal Coats of Arms, totalling 5,196 arms and variations, from Abehall to Zouche. Would love to get your thoughts on how best to publish them here on the Commons. The illustrations were daunting, but the idea of uploading the files and associated metadata has my head spinning. Best, --R. S. Nourse (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like another great piece of work, congratulations and am looking forward to seeing them! It's not a work I was familiar with, but having found it on archive.org[1], clearly it's a great authority. As to the best way of publishing them here, I would guess that depends on exactly what they are. For example if an illustration of arms or a seal used by a specified person, I would suggest display on that person's wikipedia page, with caption stating "based on drawing of his seal attached to XYZ document, date..., illustrated by Foster...", with blazon. That's clearly a lot of work for so many images. However, you could just upload them several to a page (as for example you did with your rolls of arms images), perhaps in alphabetical order if no more logical order suggests itself, and then add the relevant categories in Category:Coats of arms of families of England. If in high resolution (as with your rolls of arms images), these can then be individually cropped and re-allocated to specific pages by another interested user at some future time (WP is after all a collaborative project). You will at least have delivered your image to a place where it will be seen by persons interested in that family's arms. Your overall category would thus be "Category:Foster's Some Feudal Coats of Arms" which could arguably be a sub-cat of Category:Rolls of arms. I suppose if you want to reduce your work to a minimum, which seems a fair option faced with 5,196 images, you could just upload each page of images with just a reference to the source, a page number if convenient and a link to the archive.org text, then leave it for someone else to pick up the baton. Is that helpful? I'm sure there is a way of uploading such a huge number of images mechanically, for example User:Dcoetzee did so with thousands of portraits in the National Portrait Gallery, London (see for background User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat). Perhaps you could ask him how he did it (p.s. you can't now as he's been banned, shame for someone who did such a great job!) or enquire at the Commons:Village pump, where possibly someone with the relevant technical expertise could help you make such a mass upload. Regards, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Great thoughts/advice. I'm going to start exploring all options. Might even see if I can track down Dcoetzee, though he appears to be rather pre-occupied at the moment. Best,--R. S. Nourse (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

File:MilesWatson 2ndBaronManton 1950or1951.PNGEdit

 
File:MilesWatson 2ndBaronManton 1950or1951.PNG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Jolly Janner (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

File:MohunsOttery Gatehouse Luppitt Devon.jpgEdit

 
File:MohunsOttery Gatehouse Luppitt Devon.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hchc2009 (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:KellowayArms WithBordureEngrailed.pngEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:KellowayArms WithBordureEngrailed.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

File:WilliamWyndham Died1951.jpgEdit

 
File:WilliamWyndham Died1951.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Hchc2009 (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

PNGEdit

Hi, I've noticed you created a ton of PNG files of arms, using SVG elements. The files should SVG format. Is there a reason you're doing this? Thank you. Wikimandia (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

 
Example of Lobsterthermidor's use of Inkscape, providing max flexibility in composing elements
Yes, there is a very good reason! It's very easy to create extremely flexible images in Inkscape using a "magic shield" which is basically an excluded shield-shaped window in a slightly larger white square, so chevrons, chiefs, bends, etc can be lowered to bottom when they "stick out" beyond the shield boundaries without having to be made to fit. Using this method they can very easily be adjusted in size, position etc. The completed arrangement is then exported as PNG and is cropped in MS Paint, and turns into a neat useable form, all within the shield boundaries. The resulting PNG quality and definition is excellent for WP commons purposes. Where I do useful original work, such as creating new charges in svg, I do generally upload those in svg format for others to use if they wish, see for example my recent creations File:BarnacleGoose svg element.svg, File:SteyningsArms.svg (my image of a bat), File:MulletFish svg-element.svg, File:Martlet (English) svg element.svg, File:Garb Example.svg, File:RoachFish in heraldry.svg, File:Owl svg Element.svg, etc. Hope that answers your question.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I didn't see this response (really, ADD). Anyway, if I understand you correctly, you are talking about what is known as masking in Illustrator and is called Clipping in Inskcape. It does this for you, so it seems like you are creating extra work for yourself with the process especially with going to Paint!! I don't work with Inkscape much since it's not available in Mac and I have to use a special program called XQuartz to run it, but I checked and it worked fine. Just place a blank shield object on top of your design, select all the objects, and go to Object --> Clip --> Set. And then everything outside of the blank shield borders vanishes. Here is a video that shows how. I hope this is helpful. Wikimandia (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that sounds very useful, I'll try that out, thanks for the tip.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

File:GrocersCompany Arms.gifEdit

 
File:GrocersCompany Arms.gif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Gapfall (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

File:BeamAquaduct TorringtonDevon.pngEdit

 
File:BeamAquaduct TorringtonDevon.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

bjh21 (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

File:BurgoyneMonumentSouthTawtonDevon.pngEdit

 
File:BurgoyneMonumentSouthTawtonDevon.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

bjh21 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

MonckArms.PNGEdit

Hi, I noticed on this file, file:MonckArms.PNG, you have the tongue as blue. I have not found any Monck arms describing a blue tongue, but did see a version with a blue tongue in Google images from one of those sites that sell family arms merchandise, but they aren't always the most accurate. For Viscount Monck, I'm sure it's not blue, since this is a pretty good confirmation via color image. Anyway, if you are sure in some cases it's blue, could it be a different branch of the Monck family that has it for difference? Thanks!! Wikimandia (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hahaha, that article reproduces one of my old pre-Inkscape images, the original 22:35, 30 January 2014 upload for File:MonckArms.PNG without blue tongue (I was myself guilty of superseding it with a new image - which referring to our earlier discussion is totally hypocritical!). You're probably right, I just throw in the occasional blue tongue for decorative effect, probably a bad habit I should cease. I'll upload another without blue tongue.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Image without licenseEdit

File:Philippa Archdekne HaccombeChurch Devon.PNGEdit

català | čeština | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | Հայերեն | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:
  • Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
  • State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikimedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best to use CommonsHelper.
  • If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
  • Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
  • Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it, please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the   ->Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 15:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Licence now added, thanksLobsterthermidor (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Nethway etcEdit

Hi,

Please do not use the EPs for naming or categorisation (which is based on the civil parish structure). Modern ecclesiastical parishes are pretty much irrelevant to everything except churches. The ancient parishes are pertinent to historical buildings, but those should be referred to as historical units not the present day EPs--Nilfanion (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Not always easy to find out which civil parish an estate lies within! Let's try to be a bit flexible?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Its easy to find the current CP. Look on the current OS maps and it will show you ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


Category:English familiesEdit

Notifying you as you created Families of England. Thanks! --Wikimandia (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Plymouth armsEdit

I suppose is a continuation of the discussion you had with Wikimandia above. Ideally files like File:Arms CorporationOfPlymouth Devon.png should be SVGs. Given that your workflow is SVG, it should be easy to produce your final output as an SVG as well. Clipping/masking is an easy enough task and doing so will produce a much better output, and would be quicker than using Paint. I can give you some further support if you want, as I'm very used to trimming images.

One additional problem is that the files are on a white background and not a transparent one. When used in a simple image, as on w:Baron Churston, that's fine. However when used in an infobox template, as on w:Plymouth, the white in the bottom corners detracts from the displayed image. A transparent background would be superior.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

OK I'm working on it, I'll see how I get on with clip.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
For what its worth, I've made the background transparent.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't follow your point about "white in the bottom corners detracts from the displayed image" re transparency?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Well I'm sure you can see the part I tweaked. The table below shows you the difference that makes. The first row shows on a dark background for clarity, while the second is the colour of an infobox background (the text is purely for padding)
Plymouth

Plymouth   Plymouth

Plymouth

Buller

Buller   Buller

Buller

Plymouth

Plymouth   Plymouth

Plymouth

Buller

Buller   Buller

Buller

I can see the difference between the two shields on the bottom row, and Plymouth's looks better as a result of my tweak.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for having taken the trouble to do that. Perhaps my computer screen is obsolete, I can see only a very tiny difference, even at 133% magnification, namely the masonry is a tiny bit more pronounced as are the feathers, am I right? I guess I'm just going to have to take your word that it matters. I'm working on clip, please see my comment on your talk page, thanks.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
No, its the bit outside the shield that's the problem: The near triangular white patches in the bottom left and right corners. On the Plymouth ones, the image sits cleanly on the grey backgrounds, while on the Buller ones the white is jarring. IMO that detracts from the image, as it draws my eye away from the actual image to an irrelevancy.
I've replied re clipping on my talk page, let me know if you need anything else. :)--Nilfanion (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
"Grey backgrounds"? Perhaps we have got our viewing preferences set up differently, I don't have any grey backgrounds with WP, just white! That might explain why I can't see any difference in your tabulated images above?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
That would certainly explain things! Apart from using monobook, mine is pretty much the default settings. This image is a screenshot of this section.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Now I understand your point, but I don't get any grey backgrounds like that for any WP pages on my settings, only white! Thanks for your help on clipping & uploading svg images, I'm pretty much up to speed on it now.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

TrethurffeArms.pngEdit

Hi! Do you have File:TrethurffeArms.png available in SVG or remember if you found it on here somewhere in SVG? I'm unhappy with the stag heads available and would like to use one like that. Thanks! Wikimandia (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

No, sorry. I agree, that is a particularly nice image, I couldn't find it in svg, I had intended one day to trace it in svg, would be a useful addition. I made a "real-life" image at File:RedDeerStagHead.svg, but it lacks the artistic flair of the Trethurffe version. If I get some spare time I might have a go at doing it, unless you beat me to it. By the way, thanks for your prompting re uploading svg images, I think now (with an extra push in that direction from User:Nilfanion) I'm up and running.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

About Upton Arms and your recent correctionEdit

You recently edited the page at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UptonArms.png to correct the Upton Arms from using the Cross Flory to the Cross Moline. I'm an Upton, and I've been trying to sort out which cross is the correct one, for a personal project, and I'm inclined to believe you are correct. Can you help me to understand how you made the determination that Cross Moline is the correct cross of the Upton Arms? Thank you and sorry but I'm totally new to using this tool. - Mike Upton Visigothi (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Great question, am very pleased to help you. If you look at the bottom of that page you will see a link to Category:Upton arms, in which you will find the following image File:JohnUpton Died1687 StMary'sChurch Brixham Devon.PNG, which is fully described in the file description. You will see that the Upton arms on this monument (assuming not an erroneous modern restoration) show a cross moline of the type I recently re-edited. Thus the blazon in the Heraldic Visitation (Vivian, Lt.Col. J.L., (Ed.) The Visitations of the County of Devon: Comprising the Heralds' Visitations of 1531, 1564 & 1620, Exeter, 1895, p.743 (Sable, a cross flory argent)) is not in agreement. A cross flory is a cross with a fleur-de-lys at the ends. Pole (Pole, Sir William (d.1635), Collections Towards a Description of the County of Devon, Sir John-William de la Pole (ed.), London, 1791, p.506) gives the arms of Upton as Sable, a cross sarcell argent; a cross cercelée (or sarcelly) is like an exaggerated cross moline with its forked tips curving around both ways, like a ram's horns (see Wikipedia:cercelée). Thus faced with two differing blazons and one differing image of excellent authority (assuming faithfully restored) I plumped for the latter as likely to be most accurate. Keep your eye on Category:Upton arms, more images from Devon churches may be forthcoming, possibly quartered by other families. I hope as an Upton youself the image meets with your approval!Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Arms of Upton, Viscount Templetown: Sable, a cross moline or (Montague-Smith, P.W. (ed.), Debrett's Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage and Companionage, Kelly's Directories Ltd, Kingston-upon-Thames, 1968, p.1090). Clearly illustrated on p.1090 as a cross moline. It appears prima facie from these arms that this Irish family was a branch of the Upton family of Devon, the tincture of the cross being a difference. Seems therefore to further confirm the cross is correctly a cross moline.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

SVG filesEdit

Hey! So glad to see you're starting with the SVG. Just a reminder that it does have transparency, so always remember to put a blank white shield in the background or else it ends up looking like this. I edited File:Bartlett (of Ludbrooke) arms.svg for this reason, and I also noticed it had some SVG errors. This tends to happen when you use parts of files that already have SVG errors. You can check files at https://validator.w3.org/ before uploading to make sure they are error-free, and you can also check files already uploaded to Commons. The SVG validator should be available already - if not, add it in your preferences. That is the only downside to this format. There tends to be a lot of "cruft" in these files that causes errors when you grab one item and move it a different file - what I do to clean up a file I want to use is to save it as PDF from Illustrator or Inkscape, then convert it back to SVG at https://cloudconvert.com/pdf-to-svg, then reopen it, and no problem. Hope this is helpful! — ʷiḳỉℳẚṅ₫¡₳ (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Am somewhat confused as I can't see the error you describe on the original version of File:Bartlett (of Ludbrooke) arms.svg, and can see very little difference in your current image. Possibly something to do with my particular screen/computer set-up, as I had a similar issue with User:Nilfanion who said my images were appearing on his screen with grey backgrounds ouside the shields, but were white on mine. Clearly it's going to be difficult if I can't see these errors on my screen. I will just have to take your word for it and "remember to put a blank white shield in the background". I'll have a go at using cloudconvert in the near future as you suggest. Many thanks.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

File:ArmsOfEarlOfDevon.jpgEdit

 
File:ArmsOfEarlOfDevon.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion 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, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

109.238.80.47 15:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Beaupel's ordinaryEdit

That's not what I'd call a chevron, though the caption says it is. Is this image designed from a blazon that says chevron, or from an image that you misblazoned? —Tamfang (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, it was a brain-fade moment. Blazon corrected to "bend", per source (Pole). Image is correct. For other images of these arms, all with bend, some from 17th c., please see Category:Beaple arms.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

File tagging File:WellingtonBootsHouseholdCavalry.jpgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:WellingtonBootsHouseholdCavalry.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:WellingtonBootsHouseholdCavalry.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Jarekt (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of categories on Llywelyn FawrEdit

Good morning. Can you give me the reason why you deleted these two categories, please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Good morning, Llywelyn Fawr now has his own category for his own coats of arms, which itself is in the two categories you mentioned. Look at Category:Coats of arms of Llywelyn the Great, see which cats it is in. He has effectively climbed up the scale of importance in wp commons. So it should be an improvement, I hope you will agree.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


Devonian Coat of armsEdit

Hi Lobsterthermidor, amazing collections of works! I was wondering if you could create me a Eurasian coot for a coat of arms from the Devon area.

--C. D. Southcott Esq. 22:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthcottC (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. Examples of your family's coat of arms are available at Category:Southcott arms - the one drawn by me is a bit rough. I will definitely have a go at that when I have an hour or so to spare. I assume you want it to draw the Southcott arms? Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


File tagging File:Owl svg Element.svgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
 
This media was probably deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Owl svg Element.svg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the OTRS-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Owl svg Element.svg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 18:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

see Commons:Derivative_works for details  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 18:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Image without licenseEdit

File:Bosum OfBosum'sHele Arms.svgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the   Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 17:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Map HollandHouseEstate Kensington 1894.pngEdit

 
File:Map HollandHouseEstate Kensington 1894.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion.


  • This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: This is not public domain. The Survey of London was published in 1973 and the image is clearly copyrighted. The image is described as being based on the Ordnance Survey map of 1894; it is a new work.
Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Scott talk 16:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Lobsterthermidor".