User talk:Arthur Diebold

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Arthur Diebold!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

Coat of arms of schoenhengstgau

Hello Arthur!
Could You write me more specifications (i.e. the year(s) of origin; author – if he is known (not exactly author of this piece but author of the CoA's idea, inventor of its heraldic rendering) etc.) about this coat of arms, please? Thank You in advance for Your answer! --Iaroslavvs (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no known official COA for the Schoenhengstgau Region. Approx. 1940, Adolf Jenisch has designed a coat of arms of Schoenhengstgau Region (this said his daughter on the phone to me). The COA shows the shield in silver, above a growing black horse and down a black wall with battlements. The coat of arms adorned the homeland paper "Schoenhengster Heimatzeitung" and is perceived by most Schoenhengster countrymen as Schoenhengstgau official COA of the region. In many sources, there is this coat of arms with others Tincture (gold plate) with red walls and black horse. Probably inspired by Tincture of the coat of arms of Landskron. But this is not finally verified. See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6nhengstgau. -- Arthur Diebold (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Right. And who was Adolf Jenisch? --Iaroslavvs (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Pets_in_heraldry

Pets in heraldry has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Kiltpin (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Lizenzhinweis

Diese und ähnliche Dateien könnten gelöscht werden, da die angebene Lizenz nicht mit Commons komptibel ist. ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ACoat_of_arms_family_de_Janka.png&diff=37359499&oldid=37359419 ) --McZusatz (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Gribov erb.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Gribov erb.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

JuTa 10:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done

File:Coat of arms community de GwF.png

File:Coat of arms community de GwF.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

And also:

• File:Coat of arms family de Blaszczyk.jpg
• File:Coat of arms family de Bodin.png
• File:Coat of arms family de Buchal.png
• File:Coat of arms family de Fox.png
• File:Coat of arms family de Freudl.png
• File:Coat of arms family de Heer.png
• File:Coat of arms family de Janka.png
• File:Coat of arms family de Kolbas.jpg
• File:Coat of arms family de Müller.jpg
• File:Coat of arms family de Reimann.png
• File:Coat of arms family de Siegwart Fuetzener.png
• File:Coat of arms family de Steffenhagen.png
• File:Coat of arms family de Stern.png

Yours sincerely, Guanaco (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Die Wappen/Dateien wurden alle ins Heraldik-Wiki transferiert, siehe: Heraldik-Wiki:Kategorie:Wappen der Gemeinschaft wappenführender Familien --Arthur Diebold (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done

Fox-Davies illustrations

Whyever have you taken a load of illustrations from Fox-Davies' work and added red to them? It's not helpful and doesn't look good at all. Zacwill (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The coats of arms templates of Fox-Davies are unheraldic (silver on silver), not really helpful and only published for reasons of printing cost in this form (black and white). In modern times and with screen displays, where colors do not cost, all coat of arms should be heraldically correct colored. Correct heraldic colors are not a matter of taste, but of heraldic rules. Of course one could take other heraldic color combinations than red-silver as long as no unheraldic coats of arms are offered to the viewers. --Arthur Diebold (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The images are black and white, therefore they are not necessarily meant to be silver on silver but could be any combination of colours. Zacwill (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

That's right, you're right. But look at this black and white images:

• 
  heraldically correct
• 
  heraldically false
• 
  heraldically correct
  (with hatching)

Fox-Davies shows thus once heraldically correct coats of arms and once unheraldic. This is superfluous and not comprehensible. Maybe we should change red through black, but always the images should be represented heraldically correctly. However, silver on silver is a no-go. In addition, there is the difficulty that Fox-Davies' images can be mistaken in the form they are dyed with shadow color (see: https://heraldik-wiki.de/wiki/Schattenfarbe). --Arthur Diebold (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

But it is not unheraldic. It would be if it was actually meant to be a silver lion on a silver field, but it is not; it is simply a monochromatic representation of, perhaps, a golden lion on a red field or any other correct combination of colours.

• 

Do you think this too is unheraldic, a silver door on a silver field? Of course not, it is simply a black and white representation of Duerer's real arms, a golden door on a red field. Zacwill (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is a simple black and white representation of arms, but it is not correct according to the heraldic rules. Therefore you can also find the heraldic correct coat of arms on commons, see:

• 
• 

Perhaps this is also a solution for the Fox Davies coat of arms: 1. Once original (with unheraldic coat of arms); 2. Once colorfully colored (with heraldic coat of arms)? --Arthur Diebold (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You can upload separate coloured versions if you wish. You won't mind, then, if I restore the files to their original uncoloured states? Zacwill (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, you can do it. The coloured versions now in Category:Complete Guide to Heraldry (book, coloured) --Arthur Diebold (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Ok, I've reset the images myself. --Arthur Diebold (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Good work sir, I'm glad we sorted this out. Zacwill (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Coat of arms Beša.jpg

Copyright status: File:Coat of arms Beša.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Coat of arms Beša.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jcb (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Coat of arms of Beckov.jpg

Copyright status: File:Coat of arms of Beckov.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Coat of arms of Beckov.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jcb (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Coat of arms of Kolbovce.jpg

Copyright status: File:Coat of arms of Kolbovce.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Coat of arms of Kolbovce.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jcb (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Coat of arms Žbince.jpg

Copyright status: File:Coat of arms Žbince.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Coat of arms Žbince.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear. If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.) If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there. Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Jcb (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Coat of arms Beša.jpg

And also:

• File:Coat of arms Žbince.jpg
• File:Coat of arms of Beckov.jpg

Yours sincerely, JuTa 04:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Butkens Adhemar von Linden

Danke Arthur für dein Artikel zu Butkens. Hättest du vielleicht noch Quellen zu Adhemar von Linden, schreibe einen Artikel zu Linden (Adelsgeschlecht). Danke, Viele Grüße --Kai von Linden (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Grundsätzliche biographische Angaben zu Adhémar Freiherr von Linden (1845-1918) findest Du im "Biographischen Lexikon der Heraldiker".

• Jürgen Arndt (Bearbeiter) unter Mitwirkung von Horst Hilgenberg und Marga Wehner: Biographisches Lexikon der Heraldiker sowie der Sphragistiker, Vexillologen und Insignologen. Hrsg.: Herold, Verein für Heraldik Genealogie und verwandte Wissenschaften (= J. Siebmachers Großes Wappenbuch. H). Bauer & Raspe, Neustadt an der Aisch 1992, ISBN 3-87947-109-6, S. 316.

1001 Grüße --Arthur Diebold (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Besten Dank! --Kai von Linden (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

German Bundeswappen

Hi, I had a question on the German coat of arms. Do you happen to know the exact day the one by Karl-Tobias Schwab was first adopted in 1928? Thank you. Colohisto (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Colohisto: There is no exact and officially determined day date in the literature for the coat of arms design from 1926 by Karl Tobias Schwab for the year 1928, with which the official use was determined once and for all. In fact, the heraldic appearance of the imperial coat of arms/eagle was "only" determined textually by the proclamation of Reich President Ebert of 11 November 1919 - the artistic (pictorial) design was expressly reserved for any purpose! For this reason, numerous variants of the imperial eagle were in official use in 1928, including the following designs:

Hi, @Colohisto: Für den Wappenentwurf von Karl Tobias Schwab aus dem Jahr 1926 gibt es in der Literatur kein genaues und amtlich festgelegtes Tagesdatum für das Jahr 1928, mit dem die amtliche Verwendung ein für alle Mal festgelegt wurde. Vielmehr wurde das heraldische Erscheinungsbild des Reichswappens/Adlers durch die Proklamation des Reichspräsidenten Ebert vom 11. November 1919 "nur" textlich festgelegt - die künstlerische (bildliche) Gestaltung blieb ausdrücklich vorbehalten! Aus diesem Grund waren im Jahr 1928 zahlreiche Varianten des Reichsadlers im amtlichen Gebrauch, unter anderem die folgenden Entwürfe:

Entwurf/Draft	Amtlicher Gebrauch/Official use (1928)
S. v. Weech	Großes und kleines Reichssigel, Zierschmuck im Druck
Rudolf Koch	Zierschmuck im Druck ferner auch Standarte des Reichspräsidenten
Rudolf Koch	Amtschild der Reichsbehörden im Inlande
Tobias Schwab	Amtsschild der Reichsbehörden im Auslande
Wackerle	Reichsmünzen
Otto Firle	Reichsbahnadler
Doepler d. J.	Adler auf der Kokarde der Reichswehr
Quelle/source: Georg Kaisenberg: Reichsgericht - Territorialprinzip. In: Handwörterbuch der Rechtswissenschaft. 5. Band. Hrsg.: Fritz Stier-Somlo, Alexander Elster. Berlin und Leipzig, 1928. Kapitel: Reichswappen und Landeswappen. S. 51-53. (Neuauflage Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG 2020, ISBN 3111687880, 9783111687889)

However, Tobias Schwab's coat of arms design was apparently not only used on the official coat of arms abroad. Several other sources state that the Schwab design was used as an official coat of arms for the Reichswehr and for the Olympic team. The latter is easily proven by several pictures. 1000 greetings --Arthur Diebold (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Der Wappenentwurf von Tobias Schwab kam aber scheinbar nicht nur auf den Amtschilden im Auslande zu Anwendung. In etlichen anderen Quellen wird gesagt, dass der Schwab-Entwurf als Amtschild der Reichswehr und bei der Olympia-Mannschaft Verwendung fand. Letzteres ist leicht durch etliche Bilder zu belegen. 1000 Grüße --Arthur Diebold (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• Olympic team 1928 with Schwab-version
• 
• 
• 

• Olympic team 1928 with other version
•