Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Archive 2009

Lincolnshire CC CoA
For some reason, Wikipedia et alii does not seem to have any copy of it. It is unlikely to be contentious, is there a copy anywhere someone knows of? Thanks, - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.civicheraldry.co.uk/lincs.html#lincolnshire%20cc — but someone will have to re-create it if it's to be used here. —Tamfang (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

C-Class
Back in June 2008, following extensive discussion and wide consultation, the Version 1.0 Editorial Team decided to add a new C-Class to the existing article assessment scale (see results of the poll). This new class was introduced to bridge what was seen as a huge gap between Start-Class and B-Class. It was decided that the adoption C-Class would not be compulsory, and individual WikiProjects were free to decide not to. The C-Class has had six months to establish itself, and I think it's time top decide whether the adoption of C-Class will be of benefit to this project. There aren't that many pages to re-review; and it's normally quite clear which are B and which are C class. I'm personally in favour because many flag pages fall into the C-class category because there's a limit to the amount that can be said. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick search revealed WP:FILM are have started a similar discussion, this very day. Being bigger, they're probably more likely to reject based on the increased hassle. IMHO we don't have that problem. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Vectorized dummy coat of arms
Hello, all. I've just uploaded a vector version of File:Dummy coa.png, File:Dummy coa.svg, since the former was in CAT:SVG. I was going to try to replace the uses of the raster version with the vector version as we're supposed to do when we convert things, but I can't for the life of me tell which templates are using the dummy image (Special:Whatlinkshere is only showing one template, which doesn't even use the image unless you specifically tell it to). I would guess you guys have a better idea of where this image is being used than I would, so I'm just letting you know it's here, in case you feel like replacing them all. Enjoy. :-) Hers fold  (t/a/c) 06:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Task Force
I'm thinking about setting up a Country Heraldry task force within this WP, which would have jurisdiction over Heraldry by country articles, and in particular ensuring they provide an introduction to that country. Many key countries do not have articles providing an overview (for example, English heraldry until I set it up). A lot of information is already available in the form of more specific articles (national coats of arms, heraldic authorities, on existing pages, government or Royal family arms) and there is no reason I can see why these pages should not be key to providing coverage of a country's heraldry for the casual reader. It is not really vital to have an in-depth knowledge; providing an overview is more of a priority. Articles like Swedish heraldry can give an indication of the high standard that is achievable, but not required. I am keen to get some of the more active members on side, as creating a start-class article that can be transformed into a B only takes a couple of hours. WP:HV is large enough to consider task force set-ups - I will set it up if there are four other users interested in coordinating action and resources in this area via a task force. If there are any comments, here's fine. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, these articles: Template:Heraldry by country - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I applaud your initiative in trying to get some heraldic collaboration going, however the fact that there have been no comments on your proposal in almost a week is probably indicative of the state of this wikiproject. In fact, according to this tool approximately 20% of its members have not edited Wikipedia for six months or more. (The list probably needs pruning, or possibly even asking all those listed to update their membership). For myself, filling out the Heraldry by country articles is something I am interested in doing, particularly since most English-language information on heraldry is very Anglocentric. However my wiki-time for the past several months, and probably for the next few at least, has been taken up with research for an article I am hoping to get to FA, so I am unable to be a part of a task force at this time. (Assuming you get sufficient interest, a formal task force may not be necessary; an informal group of collaborators may work just as well). But before I started on my current project, I had actually started drafting an article on English heraldry, and got as far as deciding on what it needed to cover, and writing the history section; when I get time I will post this to the talk page for further discussion. A couple more thoughts on heraldry by country articles: while it may be easy to quickly put together a Start-class article, I would strongly recommend adhering to Wikipedia "best practice" and making sure everything is cited, and reliable sources are used, otherwise it will create more work in the long run when people come to improve the article . Also it's very easy for such pages to simply be a collection of a large number of coat of arms images, especially for countries where there is little information in English; images should by all means be used to illustrate points of heraldic style and usage, but care should be taken to avoid the converse, i.e. the article existing to describe the images. Dr pda (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you say. While I was aware that the WP was rather inactive, I had hoped to get some people together. Never mind, you're right about personal collaborations. Proper citing is always going to be a priority. I think, though, that 'Coat of arms of (country)' articles are worth their place, but your last point is something to keep in mind. Thanks for you input. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be up for it. As you know, I have been working on several of these (German heraldry, Icelandic heraldry, and some help with English heraldry) while trying to get Swedish heraldry to GA status, and I really do believe that with a little help from our Swedish friends, it probably has a FA status in its future.  Just to illustrate Dr. PDA's point, take a quick look at Romanian heraldry.  Granted, it just got moved to that title, but it needs a lot of weeding through and replacing vast galleries with prose.  What's there now may be more appropriate to WM Commons than to WP.  Anyway, if you want to create an organized effort, I would help out with that.  I just don't read this page very often.  ;) Wilhelm_meis (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going ahead and creating a talk page for this at /Heraldry by country. We can discuss specific articles and needs within the series there without the discussion getting lost at sea.  Please contribute to discussion there and add it to your watchlist.  Thanks. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Correctness vs. Clarity
Hello!

I got a question regarding whether I should prefer using correct terms or terms that most people understand.

I started translating the Denzlingen article from German to English, as it is of low importance and not that frequented (it's my small hometown) to get into the flow of translating and adding things to wikipedia. In the 'Coat of Arms' part, I ran into the question whether I should use the correct heraldic terms ("per pale Or and azure", "dexter", "sinister") or use words that a normal reader without a degree in history will understand ("a shield split in the middle", "gold", "blue", "right", "left").

Are there any guidelines about that?

And a second question: Are there any heraldry "proofreaders"?

Thank you very much for your help!

--Blutkoete (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd state the blazon (eg. It can be blazoned as...) and then any other terms with either the 'simple' or blazon in brackets (the latter in italics also). It probably helps to think of it as another language -always make it clear. So I'd say a charge was "on the dexter (left) side" - particularly if I were drawing on an official description in blazon ((and with tinctures particularly). I'm sure others would have it the otherway round "with a charge on the left (dexter)". I'm sure anyone here would check it for accuracy if you want. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm an outsider here, but I'd say that the terms of heraldry are words like any others, and they add color. The language of heraldry is unambiguous and concise, and "or" does not mean "gold", so it's also clearer. People should know what "bar sinister" means, and if they don't, we should teach them. (I'm something of a copyeditor; I'll look at Denzlingen.) --Milkbreath (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Or does mean gold, in fact it was actually the metal (leaf). But you're right in saying that it is very precise - only argent is ambiguous (white/silver). I disagree (if this is what you're saying) that we should expect people to know heraldic terms when reading articles or follow links, but good wikilinking and short brackets are in order where it is practical. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant that "or" can mean the color yellow or a mess of closely-spaced dots. The word "gold" does not convey that. I don't mean that we should expect people to know heraldry coming in, but that they should have been exposed to some going out. It is what it is. And yeah, wikilink up one side and down the other. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I can serve as an heraldic proofreader; been doing the stuff for decades now (you might want to search for other editors who have blz-3 in their babelboxen). In the case of the article that sparked your question, Blutkoete, I think the full-color illustration obviates the need for a plain-language description. (Argent is always silver in heraldry, Jarry; it's just represented by white in some illustrations.) I would not say "can be blazoned" but rather "is blazoned," if we have the actual blazon. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people blazon things that are clearly intended to be white - book pages or angels, for example, as argent (if you don't know if the person creating it means white or silver, then it could be considered ambiguous). But we could have a long argument about that. I'd use is blazoned if it's mentioned in law or official records, can be if you're retro-fitting one to an illustration whose blazon no longer exists. Good point about illustration, I agree if it's obvious in an illustration. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course there are those pesky Swedes who blazon most argent things "silver" and some "vit". And if I remember correctly, the white label of the Prince of Wales is said to be a white label.  My question is what to do with foreign-language blazons (such as those which can be found in Swedish heraldry).  Use the original "official description" which is in "plain language" of the source language (not English), or give a "plain language" description in English, or translate to Frenglish Blazon? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd do a new section on this, and an example (I know, but others would really)? It's a very good question given that most of the english arms are stated in blazon (i.e. the blazon is ....) whereas they are explained in plain language in prose. My indication would be to give the Official version stated and a descirption in normal English prose. But that's not perfect. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'll follow that advice (new section below). Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Some people" includes the College of Arms, as in the polar bear sejant argent in the crest of Loyd Grossman. Opera hat (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I include the blazon as well as a plain-language description 'translating' the blazon. This satisfies pretty much anyone who could be reading the article. See e.g. Coat of arms of Alberta for an example. // roux   18:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:14, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Heraldry on Commons
Hi all.

Just wanted to drop a note about the recently started WikiProject Heraldry on Commons| and more importantly the attempt to restructure the heraldry category tree at Commons which is currently being discussed at commons:Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry. if you've ever cursed the current organisation of it (I know I have) and know the right lingo (in english since we are dealing with categories) then this is the discussion to take part in. Even if you haven't cursed the current category tree (which probably means you haven't had a reason to look at it yet) you're very welcome to drop by to take a look at the current suggestions. /Lokal_Profil 23:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the coats of arms of Germany and its federal states (II)

 * I altered the title of this section because there's another one above. —Tamfang (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This article has been in a woeful state for some time now. I tried to create a better version of it, but it simply isn't going to work (half the stuff on it is repeated). I've transferred some of the material to Coat of arms of Germany, so I suggest that other people could check that the Origin of... page does not contain anything that would be useful on the Coat of arms of Germany article. Provided that this is the case, we (I.e. I will) can delete the information from the Origin of... article, reword the lead and move it to Origin of the coats of arms of German federal states as a stage one plan. Any comments? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 10:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny, I looked at that article (and despaired) just yesterday! I agree that it needs a radical pruning.  Your hygienic step is a good idea.  —Tamfang (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I have added the useful quotations from Origins and added them to the Coat of arms of Germany page. Are we now is support of a move to Origin of the coats of arms of German federal states? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would certainly support that. // roux   16:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BB, I have gone ahead (feel free to raise comments here as required). I have found no double redirects; I thought I'd wait before removing the current links until the page becomes stable (as I hope it will). As the blue links above testify, Origin of the coats of arms of German federal states is now active. The next stage is to think about the layout of the page, but I'm going away for a little over a week and I'd rather not leave anything open - but others can comment here/actively change the page/etc. (I mean, don't believe I would take it as anything other than help) as wished. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (Points relevant to this discussion may be (but I doubt will be) posted here)- Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My personal view is that information on current arms should be moved to their respective pages; then it should be deleted from this one; then the remaining information be restructured and the page renamed; then an effort to make sure that the page is linked to in most of the coat of arms of Germany articles. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Important (I need other people's views!): It has become increasingly clear that this page does not properly reflect the nature of an encyclopedia. We have current coats of arms pages. A rethink is required here, and I think that any information on current arms should be on those pages; then we run with the coats of arms of other bodies. Here, I think a structure like this template which I am designing:


 * You see, I believe this is the best way that information should be presented. Beneath Empire can come other things, for example provinces of Prussia, or above Weimar states. Once we get which pages we want, then this can be conclusive. I'm finding it quite hard to adequately express this, do bear with me here. Therefore, all national subdivisions of Germany should be represented, and we should have no other need for pages. The 'Coat of arms of' system should work. I implore you to input here. I really do think this sort of system, with adequate navigation, is the way that people will use, not least because people will go to the state page > CoA page; or CoA page > CoA page, and this will work fine. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. —Tamfang (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You are invited to comment at Flag of Singapore's ongoing peer review‎
Greetings, members of this WikiProject! Several SGpedians are collaborating on Flag of Singapore; we want the article to achieve FA status and appear on the Main Page on 9 August, Singapore's National Day. Although the article failed FAC in January 2009, we are not giving up and have sent the article for peer review. I suppose members of this WikiProject also want more flag articles to attain FA status? If you do, please help by giving the article a detailed review! Thanks! --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Navbox expansion
There is disagreement over the expansion of the German coat of arms template to include states of the German Empire, as listed here. As the person with whom I disagree does not seem to be a member of this WP, could everyone with some time take a look? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Lower Saxony
There is a discussion here as to whether information about the coat of arms of Lower Saxony is better served: Please comment (all necessary points have been made really on that conversation). Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 18:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * with a page like this User:Grandiose2/Coat of arms of Lower Saxony and some material on Saxon steed;
 * or with only a section on Saxon Steed.

Origin of the coats of arms of German federal states (III)
Grandiose and I have successfully deconstructed the page - but it is in no fit state to continue how it is now. The answer here, I think, is to replace the content with this page. It may not be complete, but this index style adds new navigation and valuable information to the reader, and could easily be expanded. Of course, most of it is a duplicate of the pages themselves, but it is more succinct, and provides a suitable overview to the extent that it does warrant an article of its own, complete with historical context at the top. Agreed? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me (not that I have a strong interest). —Tamfang (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AFD on (real? hoax?) Spanish families

 * Articles for deletion/Order of León-Sable
 * Articles for deletion/House of Lemavia
 * Articles for deletion/Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia
 * Please review/comment. NVO (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation
This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Style guide for foreign blazons
I've moved this discussion untouched to a subpage at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Style guide for foreign blazons because of length and so we can have some more flexibility. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 13:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:COA elements
I am editing a template for Scottish clans, Template:Infobox Clan, and in linking the clans mottoes and slogans have noticed and had confirmed an error at Slogan (heraldry). As far as I am aware the motto (not the slogan) is placed above the arms in Scotland. If there are two mottoes these are placed first above then bellow. I do not think it usual practice to place the slogan, which is a battle cry, as part of the elements in the coat of arms. There may be exceptions to this rule, but seems to hold true for most Scottish arms. If a motto and slogan are both on the coat of arms then it may be appropriate to place the slogan above, the motto below, but these rare circumstances do not reflect what I think is the usual Scottish practice of placing the motto above. While the actual article Slogan (heraldry) can no doubt be changed, the problem I am addressing here is the Template:COA elements needs to be adjusted, and this would effect other heraldic articles. Would other editors object if the word slogan on the COA elements was changed to "motto (Scotland)"? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The key change was . Before that, the template just showed a motto below the arms, which is typical in at least some traditions of heraldry. What is the text on top of the Royal coat of arms of Scotland? Gimmetrow 23:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * the text is the motto "IN DEFENS", and as Royal coat of arms of Scotland correctly notes: The motto of the arms appears above the crest in the convention of Scottish heraldry.. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * on a sub note, going through the list of slogans on the coat of arms at Slogan (heraldry), these seem, for the most part, to be placed in the Compartment. See also Scottish heraldry. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Scottish heraldry suggests that having the motto above is somewhat unique to Scottish heraldry. Could we make a template/diagram that showed both above and below? Gimmetrow 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * my original suggestion was for "slogan" to be changed to "motto (Scotland)", and on second thoughts, perhaps link this to Scottish heraldry. I think that if "motto" appeared both above and below this would lead to some confusion in the placement of a motto for other countries. Are you suggesting an additional template specifically for Scotland? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Flags of Scotland / Tenerife / UK
Why is the blue colour of the image of the flag of Scotland not the same blue as the blue on the Union Flag? Which is correct? What blue is it? And what blue does Tenerife enjoy? What is the source of the answer? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  18:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a correct shade for Scotland. In the UK, the College of Arms (admitadly for coats of arms, but still) is veremently against saying what shade any colour should be. Flags of the World say that the 'The Scottish Parliament’s education, culture and sport committee has set the optimum shade of blue for the flag as Pantone 300 ', but that's not official. Wikipedia uses for Scotland, which is very similar.
 * Wikipedia uses for the flag of Tenerife, which is in line with the Government source for Tenerife which says azul marino which is navy blue, and hence implies something darker. That source (in Spanish) is linked on the flag of Tenerife page.
 * It is therefore my belief that there's nothing stopping someone in Scotland using Tenerife's flag, but not vice versa sicne it would be hard to contrue  as 'navy blue'. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 10:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just realised you asked about the UK as well. The colour on Scotland should be that on the UK, but I believe that is doesn't have to be. So both are correct, in my opinion. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Style guide for English blazon
I noticed recently, for example here, that formatting of an Anglo-Norman blazon was changed on the grounds that charges and/or tinctures are not normally capitalised. The idea of a "house style" of blazon was brought up early in the existence of this wikiproject (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Archive 1), and met with consensus then (November 2006). This style uses Admittedly most of the participants in that discussion are no longer active, and the discussion is now buried in the archives, but is there now a consensus to change the style of blazon? I have no idea how widely the above style was implemented or enforced. Dr pda (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Italics
 * 2) Capitalized Tinctures
 * 3) Capitalized Charges
 * 4) Repeated Tincture (as opposed to "of the first," "of the field")
 * I'll be straight: yes. But on each point, 1) stick, 2) not sure, 3) get rid, 4) use source style. That would be my preference. With tinctures, I'd like to capitalise Or, yet it seems silly to do this just for Or and not other tinctures. Can't talk much now, my RfA is closing... - Jarry1250 (t, c, rfa) 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We should always use the source style and precise text; writing our own blazons (as opposed to plain English) is a form of OR. // roux   18:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think Roux's point rules out continuing 4). The others are matters of style; I'd personally advocate using italics and certainly not using capitalised charges. I don't think anyone would think that this would change the meaning at all away from the intended one. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think matters of style (such as capitalizations or italics) can possibly constitute Original Research. WP:OR is about content issues, not style issues.  I'm really not even sure that supplying an Anglo-Norman blazon where there is none in the source constitutes original research (unless the blazon supplied is simply unfounded).  It's just a description or translation like any other.  If there is no such coat of arms, that is another matter altogether, but if a verifiable coat of arms is described by a wikipedian's blazon, it's no more Original Research than a wikipedian's caption for a photo.  I tend to capitalize Or but not other tinctures because this is generally accepted practice among the most reliable sources.  The reason Or is capitalized is to differentiate it from the conjunction or.  I generally agree that italics are appropriate, but tinctures other than Or should not be capitalized, nor charges capitalized, and the rest should be in line with the original source.  Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(Undent, reply to WM) I wasn't suggesting italics or capitalisation was OR, I mostly support it. There ahve been precedents in other areas of Wikipedia with quotations, so I don't think it's an issue. But 4) is about changing the wording, and I'm against doing that, as I would be in correcting or otherwise rewriting a source. Here a couple of statements support: I haven't addressed tinctures for the moment, but I was just getting a sense a disagreement was sensed when there wasn't any. Of course, you're welcome to disagree. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Where a whole or significant section of a blazon is given, it should be placed in italics
 * Charges should not be capitalised
 * The wording itself should be treated like a quotation, and therefore in line with Wikipedia policy against misrepresentation etc., where it is from an official source or a source taken to be definitive. If it's one man's blazon against yours, then clearly this should not be the overriding factor.
 * Oh, I don't disagree with your suggestions at all, Grandiose, just with Roux's suggestion that style must conform to the source passage to avoid WP:OR. Sorry if I indented it wrong and made it look like I was replying to you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wilhelm Meis, I agree with your comment that "supplying an Anglo-Norman blazon where there is none in the source constitutes original research". Anglo-Norman is, in my view, a particular (and peculiar) register of English. Describing something using its conventions, or translating a foreign blazon (such as a German or Irish one) into English using those conventions, is just a kind of choice an editor might make when describing something or when translating something. (The alternative is to suggest—a bit tongue in cheek—that Anglo-Norman blazon is a secret language only allowed to be used by heralds.) There is a bit of a (friendly) dispute on this topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Style guide for foreign blazons where I think the three of us talking there are sort of talking past one another. Could you join us there? It might help us work out what we are talking about. Cheers, -- Evertype·✆ 12:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference with this point is that it is about altering a formal Anglo-Norman blazon in subtle way so as to not miscrue it, while maintaining consistency. This can be settled, and discusssed perfectly separately. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 12:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, the two topics are slightly different though related; see my note below in this topic here. For the other topic, the other page is there. -- Evertype·✆ 13:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that formal, official blazons should be italicized. I think that a translation of a foreign blazon (even if the translation is given in Anglo-Norman) should not be italicized, but rather put in quotes, if we can keep to that convention. Alternatively (and maybe better), we could put formal official blazons in bold italic, and translations in italic. I agree that charges should not be capitalized. I agree that tinctures other than Or need not be capitalized but we ought to capitalize Or because it's quite a helpful convention. I agree that if a blazon says "of the colours" we should stick to what it says, but if we are translating ourselves into Anglo-Norman we should probably go the more modern route and list the colours. -- Evertype·✆ 12:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (Jarry's not going to comment any more here, just so I and he aren't tag-teaming (seeing as he's my brother).) We talking Anglo-Norman blazon here - there's absolutely no translation involved, or turning into or out of Anglo-Norman blazon. An example: (The Arms of Professor S. W. Haines): "Per pale Argent and Azure a Chief wavy of one crest and depressed in the centre of one point and issuant in base throughout a Pile reversed enarched all counterchanged." is exactly how it is on the College of Arms website. I'd present it like this in an article - The coat of arms is blazoned Per pale argent and azure a chief wavy of one crest and depressed in the centre of one point and issuant in base throughout a pile reversed enarched all counterchanged.[1] Is this miscontruing the source? Not in my opinion. Is is adding anything new? Not in my opinion. Could we apply it consistently? Yes. I think they're all the important questions. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This discussion is not at all about translation, but only about how to present Anglo-Norman blazons in WP articles and whether or not style changes made for consistency or convention amounts to OR.  In my opinion, it does not and cannot amount to OR.  OR is about content, not style, so the only way a blazon can be OR is if a Wikipedian makes up a blazon out of the blue.  I think Grandiose and I are in total agreement on this discussion.  As regards translating foreign blazons, I too would prefer to keep that discussion entirely on the other page so I don't forget which one we're talking about.  Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

!vote

 * Right. I've read this through, and there are a couple of things we can !vote on now. (Blazon means Anglo-Norman, since this is about English subjects.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC) These are:

Italics: Significant extracts and whole blazons should at least be put in italics (irrelevant of any discussion over additional formatting): Position: Short extracts should be put in-line, longer ones indented on a new line. (Other options include different formatting based on length, or putting all in-line.)
 * Support Defines them as non-standard English, treats them like quotations. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as this is a fairly intuitive guideline that treats blazons like long quotations. I also italicize Blazon (Anglo-Norman if you like) terms singly, just as one would any foreign word or technical term.  Again, it's almost instinctive. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Wilhelm Meis. -- Evertype·✆ 20:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Logical. → ROUX   ₪  21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Again like quotations, makes them more manageable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as above, it's almost instinctive. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Wilhelm Meis. -- Evertype·✆ 20:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - is made for this, I'd suggest for any blazon longer than two lines or so, as inline at that point would just start becoming confusing. → ROUX   ₪  21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation of tinctures: Three possibilities - all tinctures capitalised (1); only Or capitalised to differentiate from the standard word (2); none capitalised (3). Capitalisation of charges: We might as well take a poll on this one too.
 * Support (2). Could be confusing uncaps, and all caps seems to break the normal flow when read. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support (2). While the College of Arms nowadays tends to capitalize tinctures, this is a recent trend. Historically, heralds have mostly favored leaving them uncapitalized.  Fox-Davies advocates leaving all tinctures uncapitalized.  The convention of capitalizing Or, however, is a very useful convention as the placement Or as a secondary tincture can yield a very confusing blazon.  This sort of convention also has a linguistic basis in English.  The personal pronoun I became capitalized for ease of reading during the Middle Ages. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support (2) per Wilhelm Meis. -- Evertype·✆ 20:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support (2) - with one minor reservation; depending on the age of the blazon, capitalisation can be a feature of the original blazon text, indicating age. As such we should not be changing it. → ROUX   ₪  21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Again, capitalization of charges has been used eratically in early heraldry and has gained traction more recently in the College of Arms, but it is a more recent trend and it breaks up the flow of text. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can't really see the point of capitalisation. Breaks flow, confuses if anything. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose as very old-fashioned. -- Evertype·✆ 20:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - with one minor reservation as with tinctures; depending on the age of the blazon, capitalisation can be a feature of the original blazon text, indicating age. As such we should not be changing it. → ROUX   ₪  21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Overall style guide for Anglo-Norman blazons
It looks like we are headed toward consensus on this one. Do we all (the whole H&V WikiProject) agree to the following?:
 * 1) Anglo-Norman blazons should be put in italics.
 * 2) Short extracts may be put in-line but longer ones should be indented on a new line (similar to quotations).
 * 3) Tinctures should not be capitalised unless the first word of a blazon,
 * 4) except Or to distinguish it from the conjunction or.
 * 5) Tinctures may be repeated (e.g. "Or, on a bend gules a sword Or") or truncated (e.g. "Or, on a bend gules a sword of the first"), as appropriate to as it appears in the source.
 * 6) Charges need not be capitalised.
 * 7) Exceptions may be made to any or all of these guidelines if doing so is more appropriate to a blazon than following the guideline.

Comments, please:


 * Support all per nom. I think it's a good general guide that can apply to any Anglo-Norman blazon on WP. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - would change #5 to "as given in the source" not 'as appropriate'. → ROUX   ₪  06:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes really. I'd support Roux's change. I'd just point out it's a guideline, not law or policy. We have no ability too make any higher judgements. I think now would be a good time to make a page as a sub-page of here. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 10:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support all per nom, with the change to #5 as given by Roux. -- Evertype·✆ 10:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Duly amended. That actually was what I meant, maybe a clearer way of stating it, and when we create the style guide page it will most certainly bear this template at the top of the page:


 * That should cover it as far as clarifying that this is a style guide and not a policy. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine with me, with one question about #1: should fragments of blazon be italicized? e.g. "A bordure wavy may be a sign of bastardy." —Tamfang (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it works. We italicize foreign words and phrases in that way, and more to the point in this case, we also italicize words when talking about the word and not the thing it represents, and we italicize or link technical terms when introducing them.  I think Anglo-Norman blazonry terms should be treated similarly since they border on all of these. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea at all. -- Evertype·✆ 07:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm good with it. Personally I think "" should be another option there [i.e. for a couple of words], but I don't feel strongly. For the sake of a consistently applied guideline, fine. I'll just change my own way of doing things (if that sounds begruding, it really isn't).- Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 08:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will certainly have to review my edits as well. I haven't necessarily been all that consistent in my own application of style in this regard.  The outcome of the other discussion will probably mean a lot more work for me though.  But at least it's work I enjoy.  Since we seem to be in general agreement here, I'll try to make it happen later tonight if no one beats me to it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. The new guideline is at WP:Blazon.  Perhaps some admin would care to add the major bullet points to WP:MOS under a new section.  I would do it myself but MOS is locked. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A bordure wavy is a thing distinct from the phrase bordure wavy, so WP:MOS does not apply; though I agree with italicizing (or bolding) terms of art on first appearance. —oops, forgot to sign it. Tamfang (talk)


 * I've decided to raise it on the talk page first. In the least, at least someone can confirm it doesn't contradict anything else. Can't hurt: WP:DEADLINE (sort of). - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 16:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Peer reviews needed
I couldn't remember/find where we have our list of such things.. I've put Canadian heraldry and Royal coat of arms of Canada up for peer review, with an aim towards getting them to FAR in a month or two. I'd appreciate if anyone here could weigh in. → ROUX   ₪  22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Style guideline for foreign blazon
Even if you get WP:TL;DR syndrome, the vote here should be simply enough to appreciate. Feel free to raise any points if you haven't read the entire preceding conversation, which outlines basically every pro and con, with me, or there in a new section. Guidelines have always represented consensus, so this requires a fairly large number of people as a quorum. It may yet be opened up even further. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
Archive 1 seems to be threads from 2006, and Archive 2 from 2009. Can I archive threads down to and including the section "British Solomon Islands" (all with no comments in 2009) into Archive 3? Anything that needs keeping here? Are there any links that need to be changed if this happens? Ohterwise, I'll be bold and do it, but I thought I'd leave it open for a little while. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I've done it. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Inescutcheon
I've just expanded Irish heraldry using the set of graphics from Swedish heraldry. The last of the divisions of the field is blazoned "Parted quarterly with a heart" which seems very strange to me. I'd expect a blazon to say Parted quarterly A B C D, charged with an inescutcheon E. -- Evertype·✆ 11:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I'd always say (Parted) Quarterly. I think the difference, if there is one, is that we're talking five tincture areas here - normally inescutcheons are shields in their own right. Like the arms of the diocese with their own arms in an inescutcheon. Just a guess though. Never seen it used, but I can appreciate there is a slight difference. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 13:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In Swedish, an inescutcheon is called a "heart shield" (see sv:Hjärtsköld). It's the same thing as an inescutcheon, just a linguistic difference in terminology.  In English heraldry (and I suppose in Irish heraldry as well) it would be called quarterly with an inescutcheon, and inescutcheons in British heraldry were typically shields of pretense.  In Swedish heraldry, the "quarterly with a heart" form frequently occurs in royal arms, where usually the quarters represent the bearer's domains while the "heart shield" is the bearer's own inherited arms.  In short, the term "quarterly with a heart" was certainly never intended to be applied to this image on other pages.  Maybe this is also a good example of the confusion that can arise when trying to translate heraldic terms from a language that is linguistically unrelated to Anglo-Norman. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I note it's numbered with the inescutcheon first. I'd never do that in Anglo-Norman (main first, inescutcheon second). Is that how it's done in Sweden, or an error? - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 14:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good question, and I believe it is generally considered the "fifth quarter". I notice that in the legal description of the greater coat of arms of Sweden, the four quarters of huvudskölden (the head shield) are described before hjärtskölden (the heart shield).  This seems the typical order from what others I can recall.  I think if someone cares to rearrange the numbers so the inescutcheon is number 5, I would support that change. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I am not sure how to edit an svg file. -- Evertype·✆ 15:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Edited! :-) -- Evertype·✆ 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wilhelm, I don't think you are right about translation here. Yes, it is possible to parse the Swedish hjärtskölden as 'the heartshield'. But the translation isn't 'heartshield', any more than the translation of Irish lársciath is 'central shield', though that is how it can be parsed. The translation for both is 'inescutcheon' (which can itself be parsed as 'inshield'). -- Evertype·✆ 15:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose it is a rather strict literal translation, but still a valid one I think. I'm not particularly attached to heart shield or quarterly with a heart, but I think these help Anglophones better understand the Swedish terminology.  For whatever that's worth. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It would help Anglophones learn Swedish, all right. But that's only because Swedish and English are related languages and heart and hjärt on the one hand and shield and skjöld on the other look alike. I would not be at all surprised to learn that the Hungarian for inescutcheon was *szívpajzs 'heart-shield' because that would be a literal translation of the German term Herzschild. That doesn't change the fact that the "word" heartshield is simply not used in English. (it does not occur in the OED). In fact, I just put these two words szív and pajzs together out of my dictionary, and indeed if you google that term you get Hungarian articles about the inescutcheon. -- Evertype·✆ 10:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Blazon article
Would it be true to say that blazon covers the whole grant of arms, including crest and supporters (and occasionally, motto)? The blazon article only mentions the shield. Oosoom Talk 08:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. It covers the whole coat of arms, or more correctly achievement. I think you must have missed this bit of the article: "After the shield has been described, the accessories, including the crown/coronet (if any), helmet, torse, mantling, crest, and motto or war cry (if any), are described. These are followed by the supporter(s) and sometimes the compartment, when these are appropriate (i.e. in royal or national arms, or in the arms of a member of a peerage)." which basically covers everything else. Blazon is just a way of describing in words what one might draw, using specialist language to do so. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 08:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to the place. I need my eyes examined! Oosoom Talk 09:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Additions to WP:BLAZON
Before hitting the most controversial issues, and before Wilhelm's talk page overflows, there are a couple of additions I think we should make, not about foreign blazons but English ones. There is one matter that is more controversial.


 * 1) All descriptions, however basic, should have a source. (Non-negotiable since that's policy anyway)
 * 2) Blazons should start with a capital letter.
 * 3) For coats of arms that were, or would have been, granted in Anglo-Norman (not any other language) a reliable source is required. We can't have people making up blazons were the only sources are ones that simply describe arms in basic English.
 * 4) The more complicated issue: images as sources. I think that they can be used as sources for basic descriptions. That's to say  not any sort of Anglo-Norman. We're talking "it's red with a diagonal white stripe". WP:RS allows "audio, video, and multimedia materials" (assuming they fit the normal other criteria).

Although I'd prefer coats of arms in England and Wales (etc.) to have their blazons, we can't say "no simple description". (That relates as a base understanding to #4.) - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 14:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) All descriptions, however basic, should have a source. (Non-negotiable since that's policy anyway)

 * Can you explain (1)? If we have an image of an escutcheon charged with an escallop, we have to have a source to "describe" it as a scallop shell? If not, what do you mean? Because I think Wilhelm had said earlier that describing an image (in paraphrase) is no different from any other sort of captioning. -- Evertype·✆ 14:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. 4 would allow an image to be used as the source referred to in #1. Without it, you'd need a text source to back up what you said. If you say "The arms of X shows a white background with a red escallop", then you'd need a text source to say that (this could be in A-N). Everything must have a reliable source, according to policy. I can't see why descriptions would be any different, #4 permitting. (Were talking about real ones, by the way, and not the examples we use to explain concepts.) - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 14:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the image can be a source even if the image is not reproduced in the article? The citation points to the image on such-and-such a page in such-and-such a book or something? -- Evertype·✆ 15:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(2) Blazons should start with a capital letter.
Sounds fine. -- Evertype·✆ I'm all for it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(3) For coats of arms that were, or would have been, granted in Anglo-Norman (not any other language) a reliable source is required.
Why not any other language? Any blazon, regardless of the source blazon, needs a reliable source. A reliable source for a lot of Swedish blazons, for example, can be found here (in Swedish). Again as before, I don't think there is any higher burden of proof for Anglo-Norman blazons than any other. A reliable source is required for all, per WP:V. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Each grant of arms will have its formal official blazon, whether in A-N or in some other language. The "granted blazon" should always be sourced, and when not in A-N, should appear in a footnote. -- Evertype·✆ 09:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. It seems to me that this is a restatement of WP:V, which stands on its own without our help.  I think it would be more appropriate to simply operate under the assumption that a reliable source will always be required for any blazon, and accordingly we should write our guide to explain to editors how to present this information.  For this reason, I would move to strike point #3 as stated above and replace it with something more like, "For coats of arms that were, or would have been, granted in Anglo-Norman, a reliable source should be given in an inline reference.  For other coats of arms, the original (foreign language) text of the blazon should be reproduced, and a reference to a reliable source provided, in a footnote."  Again, WP:V has already established that these elements are necessary.  What our editors need to know is how to present them in a way that is clear and consistent. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm good with that except I don't think a foreign blazon needs to be reproduced if there's a web link. What I was trying to achieve is the demand that to use an (I guess any) blazon you need a source that has a blazon (a representing the other debate over translation into A-N). I don't want people to use A-N and then source it to, say, a description in plain English, or an image. Something like "This source must contain the blazon that is being referenced." - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 10:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would rather see the foreign blazon included in a footnote even if the source is a weblink. Sometimes links go down or go away. I'd think it better practice to recommend including it thus. -- Evertype·✆ 14:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Call it "preferable", perhaps. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 15:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, that's all a style guide is: a list of what is "preferable", usually with a point-by-point rationale of why these methods are preferred. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(4) Images can be used as sources for basic descriptions.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. We have samples already which are blazoned in Anglo-Norman (as at Irish heraldry. -- Evertype·✆ 15:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean for arms of actual people. You may well find an image, without text. I think it's enough, using common sense to make a basic text description. By "basic" in case it's confusing, I mean "red with a white horizontal stripe" sort-of-thing, plain English. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 15:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This, in my thinking, gets a little tricky the way this statement is worded. If you mean, "The arms of Bo Jonsson Grip are gold with a black griffin head," I disagree.  There are several images, some of griffin heads and some of whole griffins, which have been attributed to Bo Jonsson Grip, and a reliable source is needed to state clearly that it is a griffin head that is intended.  If you mean, "This shield shows a black griffin head," I agree (see the escallop comment above).  This is the same as any other image caption.  In the special case of very early arms, which were assumed rather than granted (and actually, Bo Jonsson Grip may qualify for this exception), an image must suffice but we still need a reliable source to verify the accuracy of the image.  In the absence of a reliable source, Bo Jonsson (Grip) has suffered from the reliance on various images as sources and from multiple editor revisionism.  We need to be able to tie blazons to a reliable (text) source whenever possible.  I advocate the exception for early arms because in these cases it is not possible, as early arms predate consistent and reliable blazonry. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, there I go with my Swedish examples again. Just pretend I used English examples. It really doesn't matter, for these specific examples in this context, that they are not English. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know wether it's just a product of your Swedish examples, but yes "We need to be able to tie blazons to a reliable (text) source whenever possible.". It's just I mean with English arms, blazon means Anglo-Norman. I'm not convinced that "The arms of ..." is any different. If you've got a source that says that they're the arms of someone, and the illustration clearly shows something one can describe in words, then I have no problem citing this something to an image. It could be wrong, but any source could be. I'd like to take an example. Before I did find a text source, Lord Snowdon's arms only had an illustration in a reliable source. I was helping someone with it. I advised them not to use an A-N blazon until they found a source, but in my opinion a description could use the image as a source. What do you think of this example? - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 16:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So, there was a reliable source which only showed this image (or its equivalent) with a caption that simply stated "Arms of Lord Snowdon", and you wanted to use that as a source for adding to a Wikipedia article, "The arms of Lord Snowdon are Sable on a chevron argent, between in chief two fleurs-de-lis Or, and in base an eagle displayed Or, four pallets gules. Do I understand this correctly?  I think this is an example of a case where I would advocate a text source to verify the validity of the blazon.  In the 1960's blazons were considered definitive, and this is someone's coat of arms, not just a demo sample.  If we were to reproduce the image in the article, and then say "this image shows..." that may be considered a work-around, but it does have the important distinction of saying "this image shows..." to indicate that this is a description of the sourced image, not a graphic representation of a sourced blazon.  Not to confuse anyone, but I would simply apply this same standard across the board, including foreign language blazons.  I understand what you mean about "any source could be [wrong]", but I hope you see what I mean about the problem of Bo Jonsson's arms (and I don't think this would be any different if it were an English coat similarly sourced from sketchy graphic sources).  The current revision takes some license with what is stated in the given sources, making it sound like these are official blazons that are undoubted. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that (as an answer to "Do I understand this correctly". I meant essentially using it as a source for a plain English description, basically like an ALT text for the image. The Infobox has parameters like "Shield". I was thinking something like "Black, with a white chevron with four red vertical stripes, a golden eagle and two golden fleurs-de-lis" and citing this to the book with a ref like "Illustrated [author], title, .... ". I'm afraid I don't quite follow what you're saying, but since you didn't understand me, maybe you'd like to say more? With A-N blazons I'd follow #3 meaning at least a reliable source, if not an official one. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right. I think we do agree.  Something that works like an ALT text in plain modern English to explain the contents of an image is permissible with nothing more than the image itself as its source, but something to establish the connection of a particular coat of arms to a particular person needs a reliable, if not official, source.  The rest of what I was saying was about the arms of Bo Jonsson (Grip), which are not so clearly stated in reliable sources.  A simple description of two attributed coats of arms (images) were later replaced with Anglo-Norman text and the wording of the surrounding text was edited to remove doubt, making it sound as if these were official blazons of unquestioned veracity.  If one retraces the page history at Revision history of Bo Jonsson (Grip) and refers to the given sources, one would find that there is in fact significant room for doubt.  One would also find that these blazons themselves are not actually supported by the sources, so an official blazon may not include some added text (such as "armed and langued gules" - early griffins, lions, etc. may have been shown armed gules by default without bothering to specify this in the blazon), or may include some lost text (such as "when it should be armed" - a phrase that has appeared in some later Swedish blazons).  Wilhelm_meis (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking "as long as the image is a reliable source" and that "this source clearly attributes the arms to that particular person or organisation". I think you're saying that essentially images and text disagreed. Perhaps "but only where a reliable text source is not available". Your thoughts? - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 10:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, certainly the unavailability of source text for a blazon presents us a difficult situation, illustrated by the Bo Jonsson Grip example above. Sources seemed rather unsure of precisely what Bo Jonsson's arms were, and no reliable source has been found that attempts an actual blazon of his arms, though several sources include an image of a black griffin head on a (variously) white or gray shield; our description in the lead section of Bo Jonsson (Grip), by contrast, states two blazons with an apparent confidence unqualified by the given sources.  That is the scenario I foresee playing out in many articles if we allow a specific coat of arms to be attributed to a specific person without a text source to back up our claims.  Because of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, we must take into account not only the intentions of the editor adding the information, but what is also likely to be done by subsequent editors who come along and revise this information.  Obviously we can't predict what all editors may do in all cases, but we should take into account situations that are predictable by how our own systems work.  Honestly, though, I'm not quite sure what to do in the absence of a reliable text source to ensure that subsequent editors won't do what has been done to Bo Jonsson (Grip). Wilhelm_meis (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern, but if an image is going to be used as a source, at least that is a reliable source. Like this: "His arms were a griffin head on a white field.[1]" If someone then finds another source with another image (but no text in either case) then they can explain there is uncertanity: "Some sources show his arms as a griffin head on a white field,[1], whereas show a complete griffin on a gold field.[2]" sort of thing. I don't think images is really the issue, but better understanding of how to arrange correctly contradicting sources. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 12:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Edited. I think that the A-N blazon should be got rid of and I don't know what the book actually says, but it should also be reworded so the refs more exactly back up what is said. the online source that works doesn't say anything about the golden one being the arms of the Grips. It says it might be related. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 12:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake. The "noble" page does say that. I'll edit the page to make that clearer. The web source seems pretty clear on who used what. I can't really see how there's that much confusion. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 12:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A call for assistance
Someone recently added the shield of the arms of Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone to his biography article. I've moved it into the proper template for such information, but, without the proper knowledge of heraldry, I'm unable to fill out the details of the design. If someone has the time, could they please fill in the fields at Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone? Cheers. --Miesianiacal (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a blazon but the picture vanished, so I reverted. —Tamfang (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. For the record, Infobox COA wide requires a notes= parameter to display the image, because it is, in fact, a navbox. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 19:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Question.
I was going to ask the College of Arms about this, but their systems are rather formal. It stuck me recently, for all my heraldic knowledge, I am yet to answer two things. Firstly, does a grant of arms now enable familial relations to bear arms (properly cadenced), or do they have to apply also? Secondly, if you are the second son, and bear a crescent as a mark of cadency, and then your father dies, and your brother inherits, do your arms change? What if your brother also had a second son? Historically, it was just a case of making up something else, but now I'm not so sure. - Jarry1250 [ humorous – discuss ] 12:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see 3 questions:
 * 1 Does a grant of arms now enable familial relations to bear arms (properly cadenced), or do they have to apply also?
 * Depends on the familial relation. If they are children, no. If they are anything else, then yes.
 * 2 If you are the second son, and bear a crescent as a mark of cadency, and then your father dies, and your brother inherits, do your arms change?
 * Only the label is temporary and removed when the father passes away. The other marks of cadency are not removed. So in your case, the second son is "stuck" with the crescent. Interestingly, the second son's second son will have his father's crescent charged with a crescent.
 * 3 What if your brother also had a second son?
 * He will have a label and a crescent. Once your brother removes the label, you and your second born nephew will have the same arms.


 * Of course, the above is going by English rules. The Scots, for example, have what I would consider a much more elaborate system of cadency.
 * (if I'm wrong, it won't be long before someone corrects me) -- Kimon talk 15:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for help renaming an article
I am requesting anyone here to please take a look at Talk:Seal (impression), where a discussion is needed for an appropriate article name for this article which was recently moved without discussion. Currently, only one other editor seems to have noticed, and has nothing to offer but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I am open to any reasonable suggestion, I would just like to see some discussion on that page. Thank you. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to all the editors who contributed! Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 11:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible mergers
I'm thinking of requesting a merger of Bears in heraldry into Bear, in a #Heraldry section, and Wolves in heraldry into Gray Wolf (the target of the Wolf redirect) in similar fashion. I could see this becoming a pattern of orphaned X in heraldry articles at titles no one will search for, and I think the contents of these articles would be much more visible within the parent articles. I think Eagle (heraldry) and Lion (heraldry) are okay as is, because these two are widely known outside heraldic circles for their role in heraldry, and I would not propose merging any of the heraldic accessories (Crown (heraldry), Helmet (heraldry), Supporters (heraldry), etc.). These titles serve their purpose well enough. Any thoughts anyone? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay by me. —Tamfang (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This came up a year ago, when these articles were created, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Archive 3. I think my comments then still apply. The fate of the template Heraldic creatures should also be considered as part of this issue. Dr pda (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing that out, Dr pda. I never would have found that in the archives.  How would you suggest we proceed?  I'm not sure using the section headings (that are in use at this point) at Charge (heraldry) would be very helpful, unless you want to break up Charge (heraldry) into a summary article.  I was thinking a #Heraldry section at each animal's own page with appropriate links from their respective mentions at Charge (heraldry) would work well enough.  Then we can fix the template to link to the #Heraldry sections as well.  I could make that fix in a matter of minutes, once all the #Heraldry sections are in place.  I would also suggest marking these sections with a tag:   Thoughts? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Royal Standard of Scotland
Greetings! I've done a bit of work lately on Royal Standard of Scotland and have a question. On the discussion page the article is categorised as a "stub-class heraldry and vexillology article". Do the recent alterations made to the article warrant a change to this category? If not, then what else requires to be done? Any help appreciated.

Regards Endrick   Shellycoat  17:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The usual place for reassessment is WP:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Assessment, although I've done this one straight off. In order to become B class, the next class up, there need to be more references, and those that there are need to be improved. All the necessary info is at WP:CITE, particularly WP:CITE. Ref #1 on Royal Standard of Scotland is formated well, it sets a good example. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 17:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll be sure to check the links. Endrick   Shellycoat  09:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To bring my statement up-to-date, just mroe references for B - the existing ones are formmated well. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 11:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How now? Endrick   Shellycoat  13:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * B-class now. If you want to take it further, I suggest a Good Article Nomination; you could ask for an A-class review here also, but GAN is probably the way forward. Fill in the couple of referencing holes; expand the scope (Rothsay/others; relevance to coats of arms of UK and arms in Scotland, and you'll pass, I should think. Unfortunately, I am too involved myself to review it for you. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 15:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your help - much appreciated. Endrick   Shellycoat  15:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Following recent changes, I've put the article forward for Good Article Nomination. Thanks again. Endrick   Shellycoat  19:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Flag of the British Antarctic Territory
Good day to all. The article in question—a short one—describes the flag as "a white ensign with the Union Flag in the canton, defaced with the Coat of Arms of the British Antarctic Territory". I know it is accurate to describe most colonial flags as "a blue ensign defaced with x" (even, perhaps, with the redundancy of mentioning the Union Flag), but in this case I am not sure; can it be said to be a white ensign without the cross? Waltham, The Duke of 21:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe so. It is a white ensign. It's just not the White Ensign. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It is the white ensign without the cross. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand how it could be "a white ensign with the Union Flag in the canton, defaced etc." (lower-case and without redundant parts), Orange Tuesday, but then again why would it have to be an ensign, and not just a flag? The official description would help here. On the other hand, I am still reluctant to consider it a proper White Ensign without the cross. After all, it is an exceptional flag, almost certainly white to fit in with the icy whiteness of Antarctica; I am not sure there are other such examples that would allow us to draw parallels with the Blue Ensign as customarily used for colonial flags. Waltham, The Duke of 23:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's the difference between the proper noun "White Ensign" (the flag used by the Royal Navy) and the common noun "white ensign" (a flag based on but not necessarily identical to the flag used by the Royal Navy.) If you need another example, look to the Australian White Ensign, which doesn't have the St. George's cross on it. Orange Tuesday (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean; indeed, if we treat it as a generic term, applying to a category of similar flags, it should be appropriate. I didn't know it to be such a term, but I have apparently reckoned without the Commonwealth. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 14:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

border gyronny
Need help on the following arms: ''ar. a chev. betw, three pewits sa. the whole within a border gyronny of eight or and of the second''. as found for Russell of Charlton Park, bt in the general armory. I am note sure what is meant by a border gyronny, I have done the arms without border, see, and am aware of what a gyronny is i.e:. My thinking is that this may be another way of saying Compony bordure (i.e. eight compons or and of the second), am I correct? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I found the answer here rarebooks.nd.edu; and done: Russell of Charlton Park arms.svg. Sorry for the bother. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll have noticed that all but one of those examples of compony have more than eight pieces. —Tamfang (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hubert Chesshyre
Out of interest, how likely is it that he'll be knighted on retirement when he's 70 on 22 June 2010? Brooke-Little missed out on a knighthood despite having been a CVO for thirteen years on his own retirement (so that promotion to KCVO would have seemed timely). Both men will have been officers of arms for more or less forty years on retirement. Walker also missed out on a knighthood. On the other hand, Walter Verco was knighted on retirement from the junior position of Norroy and Ulster. It's not quite relevant, and time will tell anyway, but I'd be curious to know what anyone predicts.--128.86.175.170 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't forget he is also Genealogist of the Order, which may count in his favour in the award of a KCVO.--90.206.67.11 (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Walter Verco
In case anybody's interested in putting it right, User:evadb irresponsibly created an article on Walter Verco which I've just discovered is virtually word-for-word identical with his obituary in the Telegraph. It astonishes me that anybody would think it appropriate essentially to copy and paste somebody else's original work and pass it off as an encyclopaedia article. It is immoral and illegal. If anybody wants to save Sir Walter's article, please do so before the present article is deleted.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid Sir Anthony Wagner is also way too similar to here. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 19:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Another creation of User:evadb. She seems to have stopped editing on Wikipedia, but if she comes back I suggest it is impressed upon her that plagiarism is not helpful.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Heraldry database
Hi! I've created heraldrydatabase.tk, which, in the least, could help you people to track down reliable sources for arms and/or blazons etc (self-explanatory). Of course, I shan't be adding any links to it, but I suggest you follow through to the original source anyway. It'll get steadily bigger in range in the future. 92.23.39.117 (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Blazon at Le Mesnil-le-Roi


Sorry if this is not the right place, I am not sure where to ask.

I am translating this article and it has a blazon, the text of which (in French) is:

d'azur à deux éperons d'or à l'antigue avec leurs sous-pied l'un sur l'autre, celui de la pointe contourné, les courroies aussi d'or entrelacées au cœur de l'écu, au chef d'argent à une salamandre de gueules accostée de deux fleurs de lys aussi d'or.

In English I have translated it:

"Azur with two golden spurs with their undersoles one against the other and a half turn about, the wheels also in gold, the ?courroies also of gold interlaced in the middle of the shield, at the silver (argent?) head a salamander of gueles(?) flanked by fleurs de lys also in gold."

Obviously heraldry uses its own language often based on French so I am hoping someone else could provide me with a better English description than this. The image is on the page. Thanks SimonTrew (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Azur is better as Azure and of gueles as gules. Or is best kept as that if you're going for blazon (as are the previous two changes), gold's fine if you're going for a plaintext description. (Yes, I know.) My French isn't good enough for the rest. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 20:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think l'un sur l'autre means their soles are against each other; that's the normal language for in pale. I take avec to mean that the sous-pied, normally omitted, is included. —Tamfang (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A better translation (still not perfect) :

"Azur with two Or spurs with their undersoles one against the other and a half turn about, the one in base contourned, strap also Or interlaced in the middle of the shield, on a chief argent a salamander gules flanked by fleur-de-lis also Or."

(but my english isn't enough good to be sure). Cdlt, V IGNERON * discut. 09:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How about: Azure, a spur with its undersole, buckle and strap, above a like [i.e. similar] spur contourny, their straps interlaced, all Or; and on a chief argent a salamander gules between two fleurs-de-lis Or. —Tamfang (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I say, my english isn't enough good. But your version seems correct too to me. Cdlt, V IGNERON * discut. 12:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Azure two spurs fesswise contourny undersole straps one against the other intertwined in pale rowelled and buckled Or on a chief argent a salamander gules between two fleur-de-lis Or. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  02:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Only the lower one is contourny. —Tamfang (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Changed to "Azure, two spurs fesswise lower one contourny undersole straps one against the other intertwined in pale rowelled and buckled Or, and on a chief argent a salamander gules between two fleur-de-lis Or", and put into the standard French communal heraldry box.  I'm currently in the process of trying to translate all the French communal heraldry into English, but it takes a while....  Haven't got to Yvelines yet (I'm working my way along the north coast first). David V Houston (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what term to use actually. Contourny is incorrect really, as it is applied to animals, and particularly lions.  Also, there isn't really a presumed placement of a spur, so having one contourny does not specify the correct placement.  Something to specify they are simply turned about from one another.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  11:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One could certainly say 'reversed' instead of 'contourny'. OTOH, I think the latter is perfectly understandable, even if not technically correct.  Since, as you point out, the default position of the spurs is not 'obvious' we could blazon both explicitly: 'upper spur rowel to dexter, lower, rowel to sinister'. On further consideration, if I had had to guess the default orientation, I would likely have guessed the opposite of what the French blazon has... David V Houston (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What if we simplify it, the original French does not seem to go into so much detail. How about, Azure two spurs in pale rowels facing out straps one against the other intertwined rowelled and buckled Or on a chief argent a salamander gules between two fleur-de-lis Or.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  00:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Template: PD-US-flag
Please join the discussion at Commons:Commons talk:Licensing. Thank you, Awg1010 (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I sent you a few messages at the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Esox/Pike/Lucy/Ged naming issue
It seems that while lucy is the common English heraldic name for the fish commonly known as pike (a term which redirects to the Latin name, esox), ged is the common Scottish term for the same. We currently have an article for the ged (heraldry), though pike (fish) redirects to esox and there is not even a redirect for lucy (heraldry). Should there be a merger somewhere? Where should we point the links in the Heraldic creatures template? The template includes both terms lucy and ged. There aren't that many fish in heraldry. Should we just merge these articles into one comprehensive article on Fish in heraldry, to include the dolphin, the scallop, and information on the attitudes ascribed to fish? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 10:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merging the content into Fish in heraldry seems like a good idea to me.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Knighthoods for Garter and Clarenceux
I think that Garter and Clarenceux, who are about to retire, ought to get knighthoods. Who agrees?--128.86.174.243 (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for guesswork and/or opinions. There is however, very little historical basis for gaining a knighthood at retirement, rather than at appointment. I doubt it's going to happen, frankly. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sir Anthony Wagner was appointed KCB on retirement from the office of Garter. Sir Conrad Swan was knighted in 1994, two years into his term of office as Garter. Sir Colin Cole was knighted five years into his term as Garter and appointed KCB on retirement. Sir George Bellew was appointed knight bachelor on becoming Garter, then appointed KCVO three years into his term and KCB on retirement. Sir Walter Verco, having served as Norroy and Ulster 1971-80, was appointed KCVO in 1981. Hubert Chesshyre, moreover, was appointed to his current honour, CVO, on his retirement from the office of Secretary of the Order of the Garter. It would therefore not seem to me in the least bit surprising, nor lacking in precedent, for Garter and Clarenceux likewise to be honoured around the time of their retirements.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 20:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * However, I do agree absolutely with Jarry1250 that this is not the place for pondering the honours which the Queen may or may not be pleased to confer upon Garter and Clarenceux. They will no doubt appear in the New Year or Birthday honours if they are going to appear at all, so let's wait and see what she decides.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, right. I've been head-down writing biographies of long-dead Garters, which rather altered my perspective of this issue. (They were all knighted before, or on appointment to, Garter. This holds, I think, until after 1900.) - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I'm doing some research into this sort of thing, your (correct) examples seem to be the exceptions rather than the rule. Of the last Garters, Howard, Bellow, Wagner were knighted before or at Gartership, Cole and Swan during. One can only guess whether that trend will push knighthood until after gartership. Of course, there are many more appointments to get other than knighthood, but this is a first for Garter. As for Clarenceux, of the last six, two were knighted, both before appointment. As I said, each case is different, but it's not looking hopeful for them. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 20:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we are of one mind, more or less. My point about the chronology of appointments, retirements, and honours was that in several recent cases an honour has been conferred on retirement, especially knighted Garters being appointed KCB on retirement. It may well not be looking hopeful. Garter at least has the satisfaction of having been Garter, whereas Clarenceux, an extremely distinguished officer of arms, missed out on the top job simply because he and Gwynn-Jones are the same age to within a few months. Had Chesshyre become Garter he would undoubtedly have been one of the best Garters of recent times. I'm going to update his article with his publications.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Castile-La Mancha
Help requested at Castile-La Mancha and Castile-La Mancha. I've done my best to translate texts from Spanish statutes (originals are provided in footnotes), but I'm no heraldist, and there is a lot of specialized vocabulary here. Someone can undoubtedly improve what I wrote. The flag and coat of arms are visible on the page, so they can readily be used for reference. Ideally, what I wrote should be checked by someone with a good knowledge of heraldry and at least a reading knowledge of Spanish. - Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

FAR notice Flag of India
nominated Flag of India for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wales


Hello, I wonder if anyone in this project could help resolve a dispute on Talk:Wales? I am reasonably certain that the image to the right is the coat of arms of Wales, being connected with Princes of Wales both pre- and post-Edwardian conquest. I have gathered what evidence I can find on the internet and presented it here and here, but few are as yet convinced. Have you access to any print sources that can confirm what is already clear from this file?

I am aware of the existence of the new Royal Badge of Wales, which incorporates these arms. However, it is unclear to me whether that's meant to be the device only of the National Assembly. Also, its unionist imagery has made it controversial amongst editors and re-inclusion in the page's infobox would likely lead to it being removed again. I'm sure a case can be made that this image is Wales's equivalent of the three lions of England and the lion rampant of Scotland. Thank you, Ham 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Emblem of France
I wonder who created version of the French emblem, quite different from the one shown here and whether it was really used or not.--Carnby (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This site seems to have an explanation (url is blacklisted here, though): http://www. languedoc-france.info/06141215_arms.htm Gimmetrow 15:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So, this is the 1912 version by Jules-Clément Chaplain and this is the 1952 version by Robert Louis of the emblem?--Carnby (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not how I read the languedoc page (assuming it can be trusted). It appears to say that the 1952 version is "a version of the existing design by Chaplain". This is a "variation on the same basic theme" - "the one on the right is still in use today". However, this looks more like what appears at an embassy. Gimmetrow 17:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What's this???
I found this file on commons. If someone knew what's this, please write to me (I prefer answers in Polish) KamilkaŚ (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like a German or Slavic Hausmark, although it might be a goldsmith's mark or other craftsman's mark. Without more information about where it originated, it would be very difficult to track down.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Imho, it's not a mark but a trivet (as the name say) like this here commons:Category:Trivets. Cdlt, V IGNERON * discut. 09:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Attitude (heraldry)
As a result of a question on Wiktionary, I've checked into the use of the term attitude to describe the posture of beasts and birds. The result: I don't find it used. Fox-Davies, Parker, and Elvin all call this position, and there are a few sources that call it posture, but I've not found any English language source that calls this quality attitude. I suggest we rename the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be the favourite of Charles Boutell, and is used as required in "English Heraldry". There are also a few uses in "A Complete Guide to Heraldry" (A.C. Fox-Davies) but admittedly not much. There are many other more minor works using the term, but the multiple terms need to be addressed in the article. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 13:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Roll
Hi. Would anyone here like to flesh out the section on the article Anthony Roll about 16th century English warship flags? --Una Smith (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)