Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/archive/2015

Arms of Viipuri; party per fess or chief?

I'm unsure if the the arms of the province of Viipuri are party per fess, or azure a chief gules. It has been categorized as party per fess, and its blazon states "yliskentässä", "in upper field". Nevertheless, it looks more like a chief to me, and another blazon in Heraldica Europeana includes the tag "chief". Its other incarnations also look more like a chief than party per fess. —Nelg (talk, contribs) 18:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I would blazon it (in English) as a chief.--Kiltpin (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This in turn looks more like party per fess. De728631 (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Good question, as we can see all "very" old pictures shows clear a chief. All new > 1728 shows "clear" a partition (fess). The Russians made it to a partition: Category:Coat of arms of Vyborg (through an additional Or band for the city).heraldicum.ru Vyborg Municipal District, File:Выборгская губ из Винклера.jpg (1811). So I guess, the here displayed Coa is the old Finnish version (as the source says Viipuri 1403–1817) and can be called party per fess / parted. Also the escutcheon (and the deapering) is Baroque, which can be dated < 1744. But ru:Выборгская_губерния #Выборгская губерния Российской империи says other, which could be wrong. So all in all this is more a Russian and Finnish problem what is right.

(As I can see English is here also a bit difficult and unclear: en:Ordinary (heraldry). In German (and seemingly in all other languages) it is clear not a "fess" it is simply "divided / parted": geteilt) ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  11:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

That is why the English speaking heraldry calls it "party" aka "parted" per fess, which is not a fess (German: Balken) as such but a horizontal division. De728631 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:CoA from blazon

See anyone need for this template? So anyway, be invited to comment there. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  01:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

File:1795 CoA Provisional Representatives of the People of Holland.svg

I have created a coat of arms File:1795 CoA Provisional Representatives of the People of Holland.svg, but after uploading it appears that it will not render correctly. The miniatures rendered from the file either miss the blue background (in Wikipedia, when px has not been set manually), or the clouds are rendered black (in Commons Wikimedia, when browsing through categories). I used Inkscape version 0.91pre4 r13712. Using blur is a relatively new feature to Inkscape, and it won't render as such in old Inskape. But I don't see why it might not render correctly when converted to PNG. Using Inkscape to do so has an excellent result. Is someone with more Inkscape experience willing to take a look at the original file I made, to see if it can be fixed ? Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the ribbon attached to the lance also doesn't render correctly. I tried reverting, but no success. --OSeveno (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've a bit cleaned the graphic, anyway some objects and gradients are suboptimal and blow up the file-size. Moreover there is a still existing GaussianBlur bug which is still fixed but not yet deployed (phab:T44090 recently). ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  23:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out with the file. Clearly you know much more than I about this matter. I had also noticed the size of the file, but apart from using the cleanup definitions, I do not know how to reduce the size any better. Inkscape and SVG as such are complex. I enjoy working with it, but am still trying to master it. Regards, --OSeveno (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, code opt. is only secundary (but helps for the most other things, it can be need some very technical know how). Inkscape is also a bit buggy in using clones, especially gradients clones (as we can see every gradient in your file is an new copy instead of using this really only one gradient. Maybe I look for a bugreport for this...). The simplest and first optimization is using clones. HTH ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  15:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 15:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:SVG coats of arms by country / Category:SVG coats of arms of Europe

The Category: SVG coats of arms by country and Category: SVG coats of arms of Europe both contain SVG coats of arms by (the same) countries. They are both subsidiaries of Category: SVG coats of arms by location.
Is this necessary ? --OSeveno (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I would agree to merge it, but there is no Category:Coats of arms of Europe. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  10:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a Category:Coats of arms by country, but unlike the SVG category it has no subcategory containing the continents. Option could be to apply the same to the non-SVG category, or abstain in both. It seems to me that uniformity is advantageous for finding files. Therefor it may be wise to reconsider how Coat of Arms, being SVG's or not, are categorized per country and/or firstly by continent. E.g.:

• Category:Coats of arms >> Category:Coats of arms by location >> Category:Coats of arms by continent >> Category:Coats of arms by country and
• Category:Coats of arms >> Category:Coats of arms by location >> Category:SVG coats of arms by continent >> Category:SVG coats of arms by country.

It's a bit odd (to me) that there is a Category:SVG coats of arms by location but no Category:Coats of arms by location. The latter resides below Category:Coats of arms. --OSeveno (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suggest to create this categories. It is very simple, every SVG-category needs as minimum the same as non SVG. That Category:SVG coats of arms is also not in Category:Coats of arms (but in Category:Coats of arms by representation type) is also a joke. Go ahead. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  22:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

merging of templates

Lately I was working on finding files in Category:Media missing infobox template that use a non standard infobox templates and converting them to main-stream templates when I run into info boxes for Heraldic metadata:

• {{Blason-fr-en-it}}: 7137 transclusions and no commons:Infobox templates
• {{Blason-fr-en}}: 5101 transclusionsand no commons:Infobox templates
• {{Blason-xx}}: 12 transclusionsand no commons:Infobox templates
• User:Odejea/Blason: ~500 transclusions and no commons:Infobox templates
• {{COAInformation}}: 7398 transclusions, based on {{Information}} template
• {{COAInformation/fr}}:2471 transclusions
• User:Odejea/BlasonSVG
• {{COAElementInformation}}

The first 4 templates are often used without use of {{Information}} template or other Infobox templates and should be converted to {{COAInformation}}. Ideally all the templates would get merged into one so all the heraldic files are consistent. Also a single template with 20k+ transclusions would be much easier to properly maintain and internationalize than 6-7 separate templates. I have done similar consolidation of many templates to create {{Book}}, {{Artwork}} and lately {{Spoken article}}. One issue is that I really do not like the structure of {{COAInformation}}, as it uses {{CoaInfobox}} to create multiple sub tables each for different language. There were a few other templates in the past that tried to create separate {{Information}}-like template for each language but they all eventually were replaced with {{Information}} template with multiple {{en|…}}, {{fr|…}}, {{it|…}}, etc. Other issue I have is that the parameter names might make sense to french speakers but all other major templates use English as a the language for parameters. So I wrote preliminary version of what I would imagine such template should look like: [[Template:COAInformation/sandbox]] where each parameter might have description in many languages. --Jarekt (talk) 04:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

 Support go ahead. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  14:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I created {{COAInformation/alternative}} and modified {{COAInformation}} to call it if parameters "blazon" or "blazon of" are present. I used that template for images previously using User:Odejea/Blason, which can be found in Category:Files by Odejea/PNG coat of arms. --Jarekt (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I converted User:Odejea/Blason and {{Blason-xx}} to use {{COAInformation}} with alternative parameters. Working now on {{Blason-fr-en-it}} and {{Blason-fr-en}} which are not embedded in the {{Information}} templates. --Jarekt (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I replaced all the uses of {{Blason-fr-en-it}} and {{Blason-fr-en}} and redirected them to {{COAInformation}} --Jarekt (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I replaced all the uses of {{COAInformation/fr}} and rewrote the template to use new {{COAInformation}} syntax in case anybody uploads new files using this template. We have over 20k files using the new "simplified" syntax and there are less than 100 files using the old {{COAInformation}} syntax, mostly reverts by User:Asqueladd who prefers the old look. There are several option on how to finish this unification:

1. The cleanest solution would be to retire the old syntax and rewrite upload instructions to use the new one. That way there would be only one {{COAInformation}} like there is only one {{Book}} or {[tl|Artwork}}. However there might be still new uploads using the old syntax and that would break reverted files.
2. We can rename the old {{COAInformation}} syntax to {{COAInformation/old}} and change the files using it to use that template. This however does not help with the new uploads using the old syntax
3. We can support both old and new syntax; However that makes the template very messy and documentation confusing.

I am leaning towards solution #2. Any other opinions? --Jarekt (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If Asqueladd is the only person doing the new uploads, we could ask him to move a copy of the old template to his userspace, so he can continue using it. But any solution should probably be discussed with him. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not like infobox templates in user namespace. They can get easily broken without anybody noticing for years and than it is unclear if it is Ok to fix them or not, so I usually change them to the standard templates. As for {{COAInformation}}, I implemented option #2 so the current version of {{COAInformation}} only follows the new syntax. --Jarekt (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

All  Done here. There is only one template now: {{COAInformation}} with over 20k files using it. Please help updating project and template documentation on Commons and wikipedias accordingly. --Jarekt (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:COAElementInformation

I was just looking at Template:COAElementInformation and thinking about merging it with Template:COAInformation. Template:COAElementInformation did not changed much in last 7-8 years and seems to be based on Template:Heraldic-figure-fr. Original Template:Heraldic-figure-fr used terms: fr:Meuble héraldique, en:Heraldic figure (latter corrected in {{COAElementInformation}} to en:Common charge), de:Heraldische Figur, it:Figura araldica, es:Figura heráldica; which is sort of a mix of d:Q1424805, d:Q1076566 and d:Q3516658 wikidata elements. In other words French equivalent of es:Figura (heráldica), en:Charge (heraldry) and de:Heraldische Figur is fr:Charge (héraldique) instead of fr:Meuble héraldique and in Italian it is it:Carico araldico instead of it:Heroldinė figūra which means something very different. I am no expert in Heraldic nomenclature but can someone more familiar with it check if associations in d:Q1424805, d:Q1076566 and d:Q3516658 are correct and than which one of those concepts best matches files using Template:COAElementInformation. --Jarekt (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The first one, Charge (heraldry), I think; I don’t believe the distinction between Fr. charge & meuble is made the same way in English, where “charge” can mean either of those according to context. But I suppose “element” was chosen to emulate the less-ambiguous French usage. The instructions for the parameter “notcharge” are my principal clue here, implying that the template covers objects that include charges / meubles and ordinaries / pièces.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that the above item links to Heraldic figures, which from a brief survey of the content seems about right … but I admit to very little knowledge of the overall heraldic category structure here.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Spelling coat of arms abbreviation

As we can see there is an huge inequality of the spelling Coa, COA or CoA (or coa). This is an big vexation in naming templates, files, anything. As pronounced here on Commons seems "Coat of Arms". Any explanation/recommendation or consensus here⁇ Greeting ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  15:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• To my mind CoA = College of Arms. I see no reason why a coat of arms should be capitalised, it is neither a proper noun, nor the title of an institution. I think therefore it should be abbreviated as coa. --Kiltpin (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. I would like to see more comments. The most people on the English Project seems to use "CoA".

I prefer "COA" for categories / files / templates, as meaningful abbreviations are on EnWP/Commons always capitalized. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  10:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Kiltpin. I think coa is the most proper abbreviation linguistically. Snowsuit Wearer (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• But I see now in many old and new English heraldic books, the naming is “Coat of Arms”!?![1][2][3][4] ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  10:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Requirement: Creating a new category (recommendation)

Cross talk link → Commons:Village pump #Requirement: Creating a new category (recommendation) ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  10:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Scottish arms

I notice in Coats of arms of families of Scotland the included cats are almost all named {Surname) arms rather than Coat(s) of arms of (Surname). Several cats in the latter form exist, but they’re subcats of the former (some of them empty), and it’s quite unclear to me on what criteria arms should be placed in one kind or the other. At first I thought the CoA of … cats might be for the undifferenced or ancestral arms and the parents for their derivatives, but if that was the intention it doesn’t appear to have been followed through with any consistency. I’d like to clear this up, but I’d appreciate some guidance before I make the mess worse.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Contrary to the above, I notice Stuart arms is a subcat of Coats of arms of the House of Stuart. (And the latter insists on sorting in the families cat under C, despite having “Stuart” for a key. I tried retyping it with HotCat, in case there was an invisible character, but it made no difference.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Commons talk:WikiProject Flags#Subpage for deletion requests

Please see there. --Leyo 09:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Shade of "Azure"

By chance, I came across the uploads of FCKGW-RHQQ2-YXRKT-8TG6W-2B7Q8 (talk · contribs). Their major contributions seem to be in two areas: removing the genitalia from beasts (all reverted), but also changing the shade of Azure to a much lighter blue. I reverted File:Magdalene_college_shield.svg, but since this isn't my area of expertise, I thought I'd bring the matter here instead of reverting more myself. Storkk (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

His lighter shade of blue is, imho, dangerously close to en:bleu celeste, and is thus rather misleading. Tom-L (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I also reverted a few castrations you missed. Tom-L (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The user also changed shades of Vert, e.g. File:St_Chad's_college,_Durham.svg. It all seems misleading or incorrect to me, but I was hoping for some consensus (or someone more knowledgeable to take initiative). Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I propose the revert all changes and warn the user on his talk page do not mass edit with very disputed content (it is not vandalism because it seems good faith). ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  21:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree, they should all be reverted. His reds as well look too pink. The beauty of heraldry is that the colours should be vibrant not washed out and pastel. Kiltpin (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Kiltpin: Please, this is your personal opinion, which may differ per country. Ofcourse I am more concerned with the fact that someone is castrating other ones works. It's a blatant disrespect of the culture or traditions which belong to the artist/creator of the vandalized images. In my opinion, if recidivism occurs this person should be banned. So, thanks @ Storkk for the work of reverting all that damage. Regards, OSeveno (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@OSeveno: I only reverted a couple, other people reverted the rest. Note that the user was blocked (though for username policy violations, not for heraldry vandalism). Cheers, Storkk (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@ OSeveno I think that you will find that my opinion is the same as all the authorities in the countries that have an authority and the same as the national heraldic traditions in countries that do not have an authority. Unless you know of a country in the world that prefers pastel shades over the full colours as a national preference? Kiltpin (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, pastel colors would be a bit far fetched. Nonetheless, in the middle ages there was no vector image software to work with, nor were there many colleges of heraldry to set standards. And there are big differences between heraldry from the U.S. and U.K. on one side, and West- and East- Europe on the other side. When I got more time I'll dig into J.B. Rietstap to see what he had to say on this matter. But I'm getting a bit off topic. Regards, OSeveno (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)