Talk:Variation of the field

(First comments)
The problem about the landscape coats and coat with field "the sea proper" would be better dealt with if there were a separate article on the field. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How to deal with fretty, masculy &c.? --Daniel C. Boyer 15:30, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

bad links
—Tamfang 06:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * http://scotshistoryonline.co.uk/HSSforum/viewtopic.php?t=166 &mdash; requires login
 * http://www.cundinamarca.gov.co/cundinamarca/municipios/frm_iniciomunicipio.asp?codigo=32 &mdash; does not show a CoA

Semé
The image shown under the heading Semé seems a bit misleading. It seems a poor example of a "semé" of crowns, and I think it would be better described as "crowns Or in orle within a bordure Gules." I should think a more exemplary specimen would be more appropriate, in order to clarify graphically, rather than muddle, a relatively obscure term for the common WP user, who is surely unfamiliar with how to imagine what a "semé" is when reading a blazon. Many better examples can be found here. Wilhelm meis (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely false. Items on a bordure are never blazoned as being "in orle" on the bordure, and semy has a different meaning on a bordure than on the field or on another charge.  --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it absolutely false? Am I wrong in thinking that any of the images I indicated on WM Commons would better exemplify the concept of a semy? If what you say is true, perhaps this could be better explained in the article (with proper references, of course). I study heraldry, and I have an admittedly shaky understanding of this particular term. It is for this reason that I think it is important to clarify this term for the sake of WP users who have no clue what a semy is. Wilhelm meis (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Confusingly, semy is almost invariably interpreted two different ways, the first on fields and every charge except the bordure, the second on the bordure. When shown on a field or other charge the charges of the semy are shown in a large number, ideally with some of them running off the edges of the shield, to emphasise that they are part of the semy and not a discrete number of charges ordered in some eccentric manner.  When on a bordure the bordure is shown as if charged with a larger number of the charges of the semy than it would be reasonable to blazon, althought the eight of Jesus College is quite low for this phenomenon.  The charges are then interpreted as a bordure semy and not, say, seventeen bezants.  --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If there were no bordure and the device had the same eight crowns in the same position, it would undoubtedly be described as having crowns in orle - which, incidentally, has eight of the same charge by default. Don't get me wrong, I'm not insisting that the description is wrong; I'm just saying that this shouldn't be the one and only image WP has to represent the term "semy" when there are so many images available on the Commons that more clearly illustrate the concept. If there are two distinct concepts of a "semy", both should be graphically represented and adequately described, and if a semy on a bordure is easily confused with an "orle" or a charge "in orle", this disambiguation also needs to be adequately explained in the article (and pictures can help this, too). I would like to see this section expanded a bit, and the "orle" concept mentioned as well. I'm not trying to be a pain, just trying to help get this article a little closer to ideal. Wilhelm meis (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're far from being a pain, and I'd wholeheartedly agree. Semy should be represented by two pictures, one normal, one for a bordure, and there must be better examples of the latter than Jesus College.  "In orle" really isn't much of an issue beyond, perhaps, that it should be noted that when charges are on a bordure either as a specific number of charges or functioning as semy they are never so described, it's only when they are in the position that would be occupied by a bordure but there's no bordure there that they are.  --Daniel C. Boyer (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nodding in agreement here. There must be a good France Ancient around somewhere?  And for bordures, how about the first Earl of Cornwall (argent a lion gules, a bordure sable bezanty, if memory serves); or Portugal? — And is it worth mentioning (if the article doesn't already) somewhere that in Continental blazon the color-variants of ermine are considered semy of tails? —Tamfang (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

good examples

 * bendy: Halten
 * chevronny: Avry

Widely known facts ≠ Original research
The sentence:
 * The most notable coat of arms of an UN member state that uses this pattern is Croatia.

and similar statements have been repeatedly inserted into the article without any references. While this may be true, Wikipedia requires that verifiability be established by citing at least one reliable source. Information that is added to Wikipedia's articles without citing sources is considered original research, which does not belong here, as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 23:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources:
 * In the book: Carter, David E.; Stephens, Suzanna M. W. The Big Book of Logos 5, Collins Design, 2008, ISBN 0061255742 ─ the Croatian squares are represented within the work of Boris Ljubičić, on as many as 18 pages.
 * In the book: Busch, Akiko (Editor) Design for Sports: The Cult of Performance, 1st ed., Princeton Architectural Press, 1998, ISBN 1568981457 ─ the Croatia Football Shirt was portrayed, which design is also based on squares.
 * In the book (which I do not have in my possesion): Stephenson, Keith; Hampshire, Mark. Squares, Checks, and Grids, Communicating With Pattern, RotoVision, 2008, ISBN 978-2-940361-82-3 ─ a total of six pages is dedicated to Croatian designers which often use the Croatian visual code, the chequered shield, as a visual code for businesses and public administration as well. The Coat of arms of Croatia appears also on the Hungarian (two) pages, as an element from the times of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Here you can see two pages from the before mentioned book.
 * Here are a number of sources on the CoA.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugoslav (talk • contribs) 22:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Croatian visual code: (minimalist version) can be represented with:
 * Only one check (one red square in a variety of fields of light colours, or one white in a variety of fields of dark colours)
 * Two checks (both red) ─ the Roundel of the Croatian Air Force within the Croatian Armed Forces.
 * Four checks (two by two) (upper red, lower blue) ─ this desing (used on the Flag of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces of Croatia)
 * Maximally (as far I know):
 * The 29 × 29 check' frame of the Flag of the President of the Republic of Croatia (The Presidential flag of Croatia)
 * Historically the number of checks varied, from 1527 when it was a matrix of 8 by 8 checks, with the first check in white (on the heraldic left), and in times the number of checks contained in a particular row was not equal as the number of checks in a particular column (the matrix was uneven).
 * History (of the chequered (chequy) coat of arms of Croatia:
 * The longest uninterrupted usage of the chequered coat-of-arms, from 1527 to this day, in all of the joint venture state projects in which Croatia participated ─ the Croatian coat of arms was always part of the Coat of arms of that union (of kingdoms, historical states, socialist republics, independently, etc.)
 * Croatia is the only United Nations member state in the World that uses the chequy pattern in the greatest part of its coat-of-arms. Czech Republic implores the pattern also but only in the one quarter of its coat-of-arms, which represents Moravia, not Bohemia (the Czech proper). The main symbol of the Czech Republic is the white lion on a red shield. The main symbol of Croatia (the Croatia proper) and Croats is the checkerboard.
 * Conclusion: The sentence can be rephrased, but Croatia is widely known by its chequy coat-of-arms


 * Bugoslav (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

when is a fur not a fur

 * The heraldic furs of the ermine family appear to be semé of the "ermine dots," but they are not counted as such; but fields semy of ermine spots are, as in the coat of Wrexham County Borough Council.

So, ah, ermine is not semy except when it is semy? Perhaps that could be rephrased. In English, a field like Wrexham's would more usually be blazoned vert ermined argent, but in French the ermine mutants are semy, de sinople semé de mouchetures d'hermeline d'argent (possibly misspelled, my Rietstap is in a box). —Tamfang (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Variation of the field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030120148/http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10118 to http://www.afhra.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10118

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Dubious
I've labelled this statement "The arms of Eyfelsberg zum Wehr provide a perhaps unique example of barry of four different tinctures that do not repeat" as dubious; I intended to link "Eyfelsberg zum Wehr" but  but couldn't find any trace of it outside of this page. Also, the reference given is a bit vague; if it refers to this book it only goes up to p500. The statement and ref was added with this edit (10 years ago!) and the editor then is unavailable for comment now; can anyone shed any light on this? Swanny18 (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Turns out it was misspelled. 'Weyr', not 'Wehr'. Number 59 on this page. --Morlark (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Confused newbie
I’ve read this sentence under "Patterning with ordinaries and subordinaries; Barry, paly, bendy" too many times:

A field having the appearance of a number of narrow piles throughout issuing from the dexter of sinister flanks is barry pily.

It might make more sense if "of" was changed to "or", but I don’t know enough about this subject to make that change.

Also, what is the point of the italics at the beginning of the sentence? For that matter, would the sentence still be correct if it read:

"A field of a number of narrow piles throughout issuing from the dexter or sinister flanks is barry pily."

If so, it would be a little clearer to a newbie like me. Pollifax (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Under "Blazoning of French adjectives" this sentence: "Variations of the field of present a particular problem concerning consistent spelling of adjectival endings in English blazons." Is the "of" before "present" superfluous?

Under "Blazoning of French adjectives": "spell all French adjectives in the feminine singular form, for example: a chief undée and a saltire undée, even though the French nouns chef and sautoir are in fact masculine."

I looked this one up, and it looks like the noun "chief" changed into the noon "chef" over the years, but is masculine in both forms. So is there a misspelling here?

Under "Patterning with ordinaries and subordinaries; Barry, paly, bendy": "...and there are even more exceptional examples of barry of a single tincture, as in the arms of Kempten on the Zurich roll." I looked this up, and this is their description (that I don’t understand): "Per fess gules and azure, a chief barry wavy argent." The photo is on this page, as well as others: http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/ZurichRoll/index.html. There are three tinctures, as near as I can tell, and certainly not just one. Or maybe I just plain don’t understand.

Under "Patterning with ordinaries and subordinaries; Gyronny": "...arms of the ancient Scottish family of Campbell: Gyronny of eight or and sable...". In this sentence "or" is not capitalized as it is in other parts of this article. I’ve seen that there is some controversy about capitalization of this word, but is there an effort to keep this article consistent with itself?

Edited—Pollifax (talk) 01:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)