Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/archive/2009

Category:Seals

English: Should this category be in Category:Heraldry ? What do you think about place only Category:Seals of nobility (which contain seals with coats of arms) in Category:Heraldry ?

Français : Cette catégorie a-t-elle sa place dans Category:Heraldry ? Ne vaudrait-il mieux pas que seule Category:Seals of nobility (qui présente des sceaux avec des blasons) soit présente dans Category:Heraldry ?

Zigeuner (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Entièrement d'accord. Les sceaux en eux-même n'ont pas de rapports à l'héraldique sauf s'ils représentent des armoiries. Bluebear2 (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Effectué. Je n'ai laissé dans Category:Heraldry que Category:Seals of nobility (qui ne présente que des sceaux portant des armes). Zigeuner (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

J'approuve absolument la distinction entre sceau et armoiries, mais la notion de noblesse me gêne ici : des membres de la noblesse peuvent très bien avoir un sceau sans armoiries (pour viser haut citons par exemple Charlemagne, mais on peut imaginer aussi des initiales, etc.) ; inversement des notables non nobles, des membres du clergé, des personnes morales comme les corporations ou les villes, peuvent avoir des armoiries et donc un sceau les représentant... Je serais plus favorable pour ma part à une catégorie Coats of arms on seals (sous-catégorie à la fois de Category:Seals et de Category:Heraldry). Qu'en pensez-vous ? Bruno (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Tout à fait d'accord pour la création de cette catégorie ! J'y adhère surtout pour le second cas présenté : celui de sceaux portant des armes de personnes non nobles.

En revanche, je m'interroge sur la nécessité de prévoir le cas de sceaux de nobles sans armoiries. Du point de vue théorique, je suis entièrement d'accord. Mais je me demande s'il est nécessaire de créer deux catégories qui seront des quasi-doublons (je crains que les utilisateurs ne cernent pas bien la différence, et aient la flemme de mettre leurs fichiers dans les deux catégories). Qui plus est, je ne cerne pas très bien ce que recouvre l'expression "Seals of nobility" : je ne suis pas sûr que ce soit synonyme de "Sceaux de personnes nobles". En gros, pour des raisons pratiques, je me demande s'il ne faudrait pas inclure la catégorie "Seals of nobility" dans "Coats of arms on seals".

Le débat devient l'éternel débat entre orthodoxie et pragmatisme (tiens, je n'ai pas l'habitude d'être tenant du second ! Peut-être la flemme d'ajouter une catégorie à toutes les images déjà présentes dans "seals of nobility"...)

Zigeuner (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

J'ai créé Category:Coats of arms on seals. Finalement, je n'ai pas inclus "Seals of nobility" dedans ; j'ai seulement fait un renvoi vers cette catégorie. Zigeuner (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Crowns / Couronnes

I find unclear the categorization if crowns in Commons:

• Category:Crowns in heraldry should only contain arms bearing crowns as charge. Nevertheless, it contains also crowns above the shield.
• Category:Crowns in crest contains only crowns as external ornament, but not necessary "in crest", as said by the name of the category.
• Category:Heraldic crowns seems contain mainly representations of crowns alone, but not only: there are also arms bearing crowns within.

To be clearer, what about this proposition of reorganisation:

• Category:Heraldic crowns on shields = coats of arms bearing crowns as charge
• Category:Heraldic crowns above shields = coats of arms bearing crowns as external ornament of the shield (with a subcategory: Category:Heraldic crowns in crest listing only amrs with crowns in crest)
• Category:Heraldic crowns alone = representations of crowns alone

Français

Je ne trouve vraiment pas claire la catégorisation des couronnes sur Commons :

• Category:Crowns in heraldry ne devrait contenir que des armes portant des couronnes comme meuble. Elle contient cependant aussi des armes timbrées d'une couronne.
• Category:Crowns in crest ne présente que des armes présentant une couronne à l'extérieur de l'écu. Mais le nom de la catégorie laisse entendre qu'elle ne devrait contenir que des couronnes dans le cimier.
• Category:Heraldic crowns semble surtout contenir des représentations isolées de couronnes. Mais elle contient aussi des armes présentant des couronnes.

Pour plus de clarté, ne serait-il pas préférable de réorganiser l'ensemble de la sorte :

• Category:Heraldic crowns on shields = armes portant des couronnes en tant que meuble
• Category:Heraldic crowns above shields = armes portant des couronnes en tant qu'ornement extérieur de l'écu (avec une sous-catégorie Category:Crowns in crest ne présentant que des couronnes dans le cimier)
• Category:Heraldic crowns alone = représentations isolées de couronnes

Zigeuner (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That wording would be problematic. On shields I'd interpret as being in the crest. In shield would then be better. However I don't think any of the alternatives are very good since they break with how the category tree is normally named. I do however agree that the current naming scheme is problematic especially due to subcategories such as Category:Mural crowns in heraldry (subcategory of both Crowns in heraldry and Crowns in crest). /Lokal_Profil 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right: it is not good to break with how the category tree is normally named (following me, this naming could be discussed, but we will see later...). Nevertheless, I think it is necessary the categorization becomes clearer. Here is something nearer of the current naming scheme:

• Category:Crowns in heraldry (as charge) = coats of arms bearing crowns as charge
• Category:Heraldic crowns (as external ornament) = coats of arms bearing crowns as external ornament of the shield. With subcategories:
  • Category:Crowns in crest listing only arms with crowns in crest
  • Category:Heraldic crowns alone = representations of crowns alone

Français

Certes, il ne faudrait peut-être pas rompre avec la tradition concernant la manière de nommer les fichiers (même si elle ne me convient pas ; mais c'est un autre problème). Cependant, il me semble vraiment nécessaire de clarifier les catégories. Voici une nouvelle proposition, plus respectueuse de la manière de nommer les catégories :

• Category:Crowns in heraldry (as charge) = armes portant des couronnes en tant que meuble
• Category:Heraldic crowns (as external ornament) = armes portant des couronnes en tant qu'ornement extérieur de l'écu. Avec comme sous-catégories :
  • Category:Crowns in crest = armes avec des couronnes dans le cimier
  • Category:Heraldic crowns alone = représentations de couronnes isolées

Zigeuner (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Think Category:Heraldic crowns alone would be better as just Category:Heraldic crowns with Category:Crowns (as external ornament) and Category:Crowns in crest as subcategories. Then also leaving Category:Crowns in heraldry as it is. the main reason for the last category remianing unchanged is because it fits in with the rest of the category tree. The alternative (which might be desireable) would be to find a better wording, e.g. Category:XXX as heraldic charges and then rename the whole category tree. /Lokal_Profil 20:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your first sentence. You want to replace Category:Heraldic crowns by Category:Heraldic crowns alone (I'm OK with that !). But why Category:Crowns (as external ornament) and Category:Crowns in crest should be subcategories of Category:Heraldic crowns alone ?

I agree to leave Category:Crowns in heraldry as it is, waiting for renaming of the category tree.

Zigeuner (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I expressed myself unclear. What I meant was keep Category:Heraldic crowns (instead of renaming it Category:Heraldic crowns alone). /Lokal_Profil 03:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I am a latecomer to this conversation, but my thoughts on this can be seen at User talk:W!B:#Crowns in heraldry. Wilhelm meis (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Renaming Category:Coats of arms to be classified as Category:Unidentified coats of arms

What do you think about that (see Category:Coats of arms to be classified) ? I do not agree with this proposition. You can give your opinion on the Talk page of the category.
Zigeuner (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

English: There will be no renaming.

Français : La catégorie ne sera pas renommée.

Zigeuner (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fess and bars

Français :

Je n'aime pas le nom de la catégorie Fesses in heraldry (et ses dérivés), et ce pour deux raisons. D'abord, pour un francophone, le mot fesses évoque quelque chose de très différent et une recherche par mot clef réserverait sans doute des surprises (remarquez que je n'ai même pas essayé). Ensuite et surtout, puisque Commons est anglophone, la catégorie doit respecter un anglais correct ; or le mot fess n'est jamais employé au pluriel car à partir de deux la fasce anglaise devient bar. C'est pourquoi je préférerais une catégorie Fess and bars in heraldry (j'ai d'ailleurs créé sur ce modèle la sous-catégorie Fess and bars embattled in heraldry). C'est discutable, j'en conviens, car rien n'empêche d'écrire au pluriel un mot qui est toujours employé au singulier par ailleurs. Bruno (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

English:

A fess is always single in English, for as soon as they are two or more they are called bars. So I would rather name this category Fess and bars in heraldry than the current Fesses in heraldry. Do you agree to rename this category? I already created the subcategory Fess and bars embattled in heraldry according to this rule. Bruno (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 Support — Zigeuner (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Fesses existe en anglais (cf. s:The Grammar of Heraldry/Chapter 4 par exemple) après je ne sais pas si il est courant. Il est courant dans les descriptions en anglais des fichiers ici en tout cas, donc si c'est effectivement une faute, il faudrait corriger cela. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 14:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Le mot fesses pluriel existe evidemment, et "fesses in heraldry" n'est pas plus incongru que "Terraces in base in heraldry" au pluriel, bien que je ne connaisse aucun blason ayant plusieurs champagne dans le même champ. Toutefois l'union de fasces et bars est "internationalement" nécessaire puisque la Fr:fasce, au delà de trois, devint burelle ou trangle, alors que le changement en GB:Bar se fait dès la deuxième. Avec les divises (bar) et les jumelles (Bar-gemels) ça va faire une catégorie "épaisse". --Ssire (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

 Support — Agree 100%. It has been two years; high time it was changed! Kiltpin (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2012

Léopards

Français :

Je ne suis pas à l'aise avec la catégorie Leopards in heraldry puisque le léopard francophone semble généralement appelé en anglais lion passant guardant. Dans une catégorisation anglophone, il serait donc plus correct à mon avis d'utiliser de préférence Lions guardant in heraldry (synonyme de la précédente), sous-catégorie de Lions in heraldry. Bruno (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

English:

The category Leopards in heraldry uses the French word léopard whereas this animal is mostly called lion passant guardant in English heraldry (or at the least it seems so to me, but I am no specialist). As the name of the Commons' categories are in English, I think we should use Lions guardant in heraldry instead of Leopards in heraldry. Bruno (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 Support — Zigeuner (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Français : Pour être exact, il faudrait renommer la catégorie en Category:Lions passant guardant in heraldry (puisque Category:Lions rampant guardant in heraldry, c'est-à-dire les léopards lionnés, existe déjà).

English: It would be better to rename it in Category:Lions passant guardant in heraldry (as Category:Lions rampant guardant in heraldry exists).

Zigeuner (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

 Support Ça me va très bien. Bruno (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It also appears that in British heraldry, there is the possibility of a leopard passant guardant, which makes this really confusing. Tinynanorobots (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

So does this mean that it was decided, because it does not appear to be changed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinynanorobots (talk • contribs) 04:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC) (UTC)

Français :

Tinynanorobots, quel est la différence entre un « leopard passant guardant » et un « lion passant guardant » ?

Cordialement,

--Bvs-aca (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

English:

Tinynanorobots, what's the difference between a «leopard passant guardant» and a «lion passant guardant» ?

Regards,

--Bvs-aca (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Français :

 Done . À noter qu'il reste encore toutes les sous-catégories utilisant le mot « léopard » qu'il faudrait aussi renommer. Je vais commencer à m'en occuper.

Cordialement,

--Bvs-aca (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Silver bezants?

Français :

La catégorie Bezants in heraldry prétend regrouper tous les besants francophones (or ou argent), à mon avis de façon abusive puisque - à ma connaissance - le bezant anglophone est toujours d'or (et c'est tellement évident qu'on ne le précise même pas) et prend le nom de plate quand il est d'argent. Voir à ce sujet ce que j'avais déjà dit sur la page de discussion associée. Bruno (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

English:

In French heraldry the word besant means a roundel made of metal (or/argent). But it seems to me that we cannot use the category Bezants in heraldry for roundels argent, because in English heraldry a bezant is always or, and is named plate when argent. See the talk page where I proposed to rename this category. Bruno (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 Support — Je propose de la renommer Category:Roundels of metal in heraldry (et de créer Category:Roundels of colour in heraldry, par symétrie). Zigeuner (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to just have a Category:Roundels in heraldry with each specific tincture as a subcategory (only 8 of them anyway). /Lokal_Profil 03:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well... Maybe it would be better to have no subcategory at all (all roundels, metal or colour, in Category:Roundels in heraldry)! Zigeuner (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose - Keep cat name. In Spanish terminology as well, "bezantes" refers only to gold or argent (metal) roundels. Roundel (Roeles) is use to name other colors. I think that it is enought to include a explanatory text. See armoria.info. --SanchoPanzaXXI (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the category names are not in Spanish neither in French. Bezants doesn't refer to the same thing that besants and bezantes. We can do anything against the facts that the categories names are in English, and that English words don't have the same meanings as ours. I thnik it is better to have correct and clear categories names ; translations and explanotory texts have to be given for non-English speakers. Zigeuner (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of English here is to simplify communication, not an imposition..commons is a repository of images to be used in different enciclopedical versions.--SanchoPanzaXXI (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the communication simplified if we use the English word with the Spanish/French meaning ? Moreover, the use of English in categories name is an imposition (see Commons:Categorías#Uso de las categorías), contrary to galleries name. I would prefer Commons to be more internationalized, but it is not the case. Zigeuner (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't corrupt my words, please. The solution is the use of introductory text to clearly state what particularities have a english word in other languages. And by the way, heraldic words like "panela" or "engolada", tipic from spanish heraldry, has no translation in english. --SanchoPanzaXXI (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Renaming the category tree

As per the discussion above. Would it be desirable to rename the whole category tree from Category:XXX in heraldry to Category:XXX as heraldic charges (or any other suggestion). The current naming convention does currently not reflect what the categories are expected to contain. /Lokal_Profil 03:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, has this page been advertised anywhere? /Lokal_Profil 03:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I try to put a link toward the Commons:WikiProject Heraldry on each subcategory of Category:Heraldry (with {{Project Heraldry}}). Moreover, a link to this discussion should be put on the talk page of Category:Heraldic figures. Zigeuner (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I totaly agree with creating a tree Category:XXX as heraldic charges.

Nevertheless, I think categories Category:XXX in heraldry should not disappear. So they should not be renamed to Category:XXX as heraldic charges, but Category:XXX as heraldic charges should be created as subcategories of Category:XXX in heraldry (as well as Category:XXX as heraldic external ornaments).

Actually a lot of categories Category:XXX in heraldry are subcategories of Category:XXX (for example, Category:Capercaillies in heraldry is a subcategory of Category:Tetrao urogallus). I don't think it would be clear that Category:XXX contain Category:XXX as heraldic charges, Category:XXX as heraldic supporter, Category:XXX as heraldic crest, etc.

Moreover, if you are looking for a special figure (for example a tiger), it would be interesting to have a category where you can find all coats of arms bearing this figure, insted of looking in charges categories, and then in crests categories, and then in supporters categories...

The table above is a presentation of what could be the new category tree (I took the lion as example; ... means all the others subcategories):

Français

Je suis tout à fait d'accord quant à la nécessité de créer un arbre Category:XXX as heraldic charges [XXX en tant que meuble/pièce héraldique].

Cependant, je pense qu'il faudrait conserver les catégories Category:XXX in heraldry. Il ne faudrait donc pas les renommer en Category:XXX as heraldic charges ; au contraire, Category:XXX as heraldic charges devraient être créées comme sous-catégories de Category:XXX in heraldry (en même temps que Category:XXX as heraldic external ornaments).

En effet de nombreuses catégories Category:XXX in heraldry sont des sous-catégories de Category:XXX (par exemple, Category:Capercaillies in heraldry est une sous-catégorie de Category:Tetrao urogallus). Je pense qu'il vaudrait mieux éviter d'encombre Category:XXX avec Category:XXX as heraldic charges, Category:XXX as heraldic supporter, Category:XXX as heraldic crest, etc.

De plus, lorsque quelqu'un recherche une figure particulière (par exemple un tigre), il serait préférable d'avoir une seule catégorie présentant toutes les armes possédant cette figure, plutôt que de la chercher dans les catégories des meubles, des cimiers, des supports ...

Le tableau ci-dessous présente une proposition pour l'organigramme des catégories (le lion est pris comme exemple ; ... représente toutes les autres sous-catégories) :

Zigeuner (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Heraldic figures	Category:Heraldic charges	Category:Animals as heraldic charges	Category:Lions as heraldic charges
			...
		...	...
	Category:Heraldic external ornaments	Category:Heraldic external ornaments by type	Category:Animals as heraldic external ornaments	Category:Lions as heraldic external ornaments	Category:Lions in supporters
					Category:Lions in crests
				...	...
			...	...	...
		Category:Heraldic supporters	Category:Animals in supporters	Category:Lions in supporters
				...
			...	...
		Category:Heraldic crests	Category:Animals in crests	Category:Lions in crests
				...
			...	...
	Category:Heraldic figures by type	Category:Animals in heraldry	Category:Lions in heraldry	Category:Lions as heraldic external ornaments	Category:Lions in supporters
					Category:Lions in crests
				Category:Lions as heraldic charges
			...	...
		...	...	...

Bravo pour cette proposition, qui me convient très bien pour l'essentiel. Si je peux me permettre deux remarques de détail, pour faire avancer le schmilblick :

• My English is not very good mais j'aurais écrit Lions as heraldic charges ou Lions as an heraldic charge plutôt que Lions as heraldic charge. Me trompe-je ?
• Dans le nom Heraldic figures by type, le par type ne me paraît pas assez explicite (il pourrait aussi bien s'appliquer à la distinction charges/ornements alors que ce n'en est justement pas l'objet). Il faudrait trouver quelque chose comme par motif (j'allais dire par figure) mais je ne sais pas le dire convenablement en anglais. Il existe déjà Heraldic figures by theme : est-ce que cela ne conviendrait pas, à condition de se mettre d'accord sur les thèmes ? Ou, mieux, simplement remplacer dans ton arbre Heraldic figures par Category:Elements of Coat of arms, et Heraldic figures by type par Heraldic figures (ce qui ramène au par figure que j'évoquais plus haut).

Bien cordialement, Bruno (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment: Yes it would be Lions as heraldic charges. There are a few more that need to be pluralised(?). I've updated the tree above according to this. As for Heraldic figures by type I agree that it's not the most exact description, not sure about a better one though. Also we can't forget about Category:Elements_of_Coat_of_arms which is the tree that should (in theory) hold heraldic charges (and other template images) when they are not on a shield/a supporter/in crest. The tree above definitely looks like a good start though. /Lokal_Profil 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

J'ai pris en compte vos remarques. J'ai élaboré une nouvelle proposition, qui me semble plus simple : Category tree (l'image n'est que sur wikipédia, pas sur Commons. Ce soir, je n'ai pas le courage de l'améliorer, ni de la charger sur Commons, mais vous pouvez déjà vous faire une idée). Zigeuner (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Human figures in heraldry etc. all be within "Heraldic figures by theme"? Also just want to double-check that I got it right. Heraldic charges would be a subcat of Heraldic figures, not of "Elements of Coat of arms"? Which (by the way) should be renamed either "Elements of coat of arms" or "Elements of Coat of Arms". /Lokal_Profil 00:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW dropped a note on Commons talk:Categories for discussion in case anyone over there is interested. /Lokal_Profil 00:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Category:Heraldic figures by theme: "Human figures in heraldry" etc. have not to be in this category. Actually these are categories that list figures by their nature (Human figures, Geometrical figures, etc.). But in "Heraldic figures" there were also other categories that list figures by theme ("Religion in heraldry", etc.). It is not the same: for example, "Saint Peter in heraldry" was in "Human figures in heraldry", but also in "Religion in heraldry". As each figure is in a category "by nature", I thought it was better to move apart the categories "by theme". Maybe I should put a message in [:Category:Heraldic figures by theme]] saying that this category does not list every figures, and that each subcategory in this category should also be in a subcategory of Category:Heraldic figures. Is it clear ?
• I think Category:Heraldic charges should be in Category:Elements of Coat of arms. It is clearly an element of a coat of arms, as the shield, the external ornaments, etc. What I don't much like in the category tree I proposed is that "Heraldic charges" and "Heraldic figures as charges" contain the same subcategories. But what could we do ? Each charge is a "figure"! (there is not this problem with "Heraldic external ornaments" and "Heraldic figures as external ornaments", because every ornaments are not a "figure" (for example "Mottos").
• I totally agree that "Elements of Coat of arms" should be renamed "Elements of coat of arms" (but "Elements of Coat of Arms" doesn't seem good to me : is there is a reason to write "Coat of Arms" instead of "coat of arms" ?). Maybe it could also be renamed "Coat of arms elements" (as "SVG coat of arms elements").

Zigeuner (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply. Ok. Now I understand the "by theme" and yes keeping that for "abstract ideas" such as religion etc. sounds good. What I meant about removing Heraldic charges from Elements of Coat of arms is that Heraldic charges (and Heraldic external ornaments) ar by default always also Heraldic figures unlike Heraldic divisions, Heraldic tinctures etc. Unless I'm getting confused that is. (Which is very likely) I think firstly we need to define what we mean with "heraldic figure" and therefore also what things are not "heraldic figures". If for instance (my interpretation of your image) all heraldic charges except heraldic ordinares are also heraldic figures then heraldic charges should simply contain only the categories heraldic ordinares and heraldic figures as charges.

As for the capitalisation "Elements of coat of arms" looks better to me then "Elements of Coat of Arms" but I know that a lot of native English speakers are picky about this and I think the latter is probably more correct. That's not necessarily a problem for us though as long as we are consistent.

Also dropped a note on en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology since they are probably a good source for the correct english terms needed in the Category names. /Lokal_Profil 23:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I like what I'm seeing in the table above! I agree that 'Heraldic figures as [charges/crests/etc.]' is not needed, but I would also say 'Heraldic figures as external ornaments' is unnecessary. I always took "heraldic figures" to mean any symbol used in heraldry, be it an animal or object, ordinary, or any other geometric shape (e.g. star), whether it be used as a charge, crest or supporter. I think the "elements" that are not "figures" would include helmets (except when used as a charge), crowns (except when used as a charge), torses and mantling, mottoes or war cries, and compartments. Am I wrong in my assessment of what is meant by the term "figure"? By my logic, 'Heraldic figures as...' would be unnecessary, as the subcategories of these could be grouped without the term "figure" (i.e. all subcats that would go in 'Heraldic figures as charges' could instead go into 'Heraldic charges', which in turn would go in 'Heraldic figures' as well as 'Elements of coat of arms'; the same would apply to crests and supporters as well). If it is of any help, as a native English speaker, I would say "Elements of coat of arms" is the winner. There is never any need to capitalize coat of arms in English, but we often do abbreviate it CoA for some reason. Wilhelm meis (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I see Elements of coat of arms as ungramatical. It should be either Elements of a coat of arms or Elements of coats of arms. Oosoom ^Talk 10:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any problem with "Elements of a coat of arms". I just didn't think we usually include articles (a, an, the) in category names, but I'm not very concerned with that either way. Wilhelm meis (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour à tous !

Qu'en est-il de cette proposition ? Les catégories héraldiques sur Commons se multiplient, il est donc grand temps d'y apporter un peu plus de logique et de systémisme avant que la tâche ne devienne impossible  !

Cordialement,

--Bvs-aca (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

To all contributors in this project, rgds, --SanchoPanzaXXI (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot ! But since you wrote here, you are also a contributor in this project ! Rgds Zigeuner (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Filiera

Congratulations for the project. I need some help to categorize some COA that has something that in spanish and catalan we say "filiera". A filiera is a third part of a bordure. For exemple: File:Escudo de Malla.svg, File:Escut de Collbató.svg or File:Escut d'Alella.svg. I don't find a specific category. Could anyone help me? Regards!! --Xavigivax (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that in English a "filiera" has not a specific word [1]. We need a solution for this problem. I thought two options, one of them will be categorize the "filieras" as Bordures in heraldry, explaining in Spanish and other languages that the category includes both, some like this:

Español: Borduras y filieras en heráldica

. The second option is create an other nested category in other language. What's your opinion? --Xavigivax (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Flag identification

Since flags seem to have been included in this project I thought I should share this link which I was recently told about. Should help in identifying flags which have been uploaded with insuficient information/categories. /94.193.242.248 17:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems indeed a wonderful tool. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 13:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical crests

I'm looking for crest elements. Specifically a cardinal's hat (complete with tassels). Can anyone help me find one or create one? OrangeDog (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Might be somethign in Ecclesiastical heraldry or Category:Ecclesiastical heraldry =) /Lokal_Profil 00:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's where they're hiding, thanks. OrangeDog (talk • contribs) 02:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)