User talk:Caranorn

Welcome to the Commons, Caranorn!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ 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. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. 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. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Caranorn!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

--EugeneZelenko 16:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Armoiries la Hulpe.png

You uploaded this image which you claim to be your own work. On the upload page you agreed to place it under a Free license but did not specify which one. Please do so by adding a suitable copyright tag.--Panther 19:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Armoiries Lessines.png

Beau boulot -- roidelapluie 19:02 23 September 2006 (CET)

I'm back, for short time

sorry for not replying, but two things keep me strongly away from working on Wiki, first is my job and second is my 4 weeks old daughter. I had a look at most of the discussion concerning my images on these coats and that I am a copyright criminal. Maybe I should get a lawyer next time I visit Luxembourg? ;-) I'll haver a look at the matter in the next days. I must admit it's a pretty weird situation. Well my cousin is a lawyer in Luxembourg. Maybe he can enlighten us what this whole law statement allows and what it does not. cheers Spanish Inquisition 20:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Armoiries comte de Flandres.png

Page out of Gelre Armorial. Flag left in the middle

Hi,

I saw you added this picture. On the dutch wikipedia there's a small discussion about the colours of the coat of arms. On the sites that show different images of several armorials, eg. http://perso.modulonet.fr/~briantimms/wijnbergen/wnflandre.htm , http://perso.modulonet.fr/~briantimms/rolls/WalfordsC1.html ,the comte of flanders has a coat featuring a black lion with red accents on a yellow background.

Which site/source did you use to fabricate the pictures? Can you check the colour-combination on that source? MADe 20:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you answer on w:nl:Overleg gebruiker:MADe (edit=bewerk, save=opslaan)?

Hello,

I gave my source on the image page. That is the blazoning from the Wijnbergen Armorial (as you know Brian Timms site you can check it there (note that he tends to draw arms differently then in the original blazonning, so I would not be astonished if he portrayed the lion armed and langued gules, even blason his translation such). Generally both variants are correct, the one I used is older, the one with red claws and tongue appeared one or two generations later, today the modern, red clawed and tongued variant would be more appropriate.

Note that even the two examples you give from Brian Timms have the original blazonning without red claws and tongue (or a un lion de sable rampant and or au lion de sable). On the other hand your image from Gelre points in the other direction, then again, Gelre is a later Armorial then Wijnbergen (with Timms's site breaking apart I can't find his dating page which is quite useful, though I did make a partial backup of his site a while ago if needed).

Let me know if you need any additional information.--Caranorn 22 mei 2007 13:13 (CEST)

So, Timm's site describes the images well, but the images aren't correct? Or the image is somewhat later then the description?

Can you send me that dating page: MADe[at]wikipedia.be ? (you can answer here)MADe 11:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bigot133_Heinrich_von_Luxemburg.png

---

Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. --Siebrand 12:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Armes province luxembourg.png

Merci pour votre commentaire sur ma page de discussion. Et désolé pour l'erreur dans l'image. J'ai noté qu'il était maintenant possible de fournir des fichier SVG sur wikimedia, c'est le format que j'avais utilisé à l'époque. Malheureusement, le fichier se trouve pour le moment sur un disque dur protégé par un mot de passe dont je ne me rappel plus.

Je ne suis pas vraiment un spécialiste des amres et autres blason, et honetement, je n'ai pas tout à fait compris votre remarque (la queue n'est pas juste, d'accord, mais pourquoi, cela m'échappe). Donc si vous souhaitez corriger l'image n'hésitez pas, je tenterai ce weekend de récupérer le fichier SVG d'origine, et de le corriger si j'y arrive, et dans tout les cas de l'uploader sur common affin de facilité toute adaptation nécessaire.

Nicnac25 09:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Budange (1)

Ta correction c'est parfaite. A bientot Massimop 19:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Blason d'Albé

Tu as chargé le blason avec l'ecu d'azur, tandis que dans le vieil blason (Albe arms.svg) l'ecu est de sable. Puis-tu verifier ? Merci --Massimop (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Blackbird (male).jpg

Thanks for the notification, I am glad you found a good use for the image :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: de la Marck

Au tant pour mois pour l'erreur :

1. je fais une demande de remplacement sur User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands
2. je mettrai en ligne une version corrigée de qui a le même problème.

Cordialement. Odejea (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Blazon

You say The blazon itself cannot be copyrighted (akin to language and the like). Are you sure ? Did you have a reference ? Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 16:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:NW Bastion Bourscheid (2).JPG

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 15:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Caranorn!

You have done an impressive work here. I would really like to know more about some armoiries, more exactly where can i find the book of Dr. Jean Claude Loutsch, Armorial du Pays de Luxembourg 1974 ?

Best regards,

Thanks. It might be hard to find this book outside an antiquary shop as it's been out of print for a while now. If you live in Europe you might also find it at a larger library. I worked from a copy from the National Library here in Luxembourg (bnl.lu). I fear I cannot help you anymore than that.--Caranorn (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/Civil_Ensign_and_Roundel_of_Luxembourg

Regarding Commons:Deletion_requests/Civil_Ensign_and_Roundel_of_Luxembourg, could you please edit your nomination to indicate why you believe the images in question to be non-free? You say they are derivatives of copyrighted images, but you offer no proof for this assertion, and furthermore merely being under copyright does not mean the images are not free. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

File:Armoiries d'Oriocourt 1.svg

Hi, I have a question concerning the File:Armoiries d'Oriocourt 1.svg, at which time was it the valid blason of precisely whom? The blason of Aulnois-sur-Seille is said to be the medieval blason of the first family of seigneurs of the village. And the family Oriocourt is said to be the first family of seigneurs after the bishops of Metz. The lion looks alike. I know that blasons changed a lot and every branch of a family had different ones anyways.--Stanzilla (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• 
  Armoiries d'Oriocourt
• 
  Aulnois-sur-Seille

Armoiries des Gournay de Metz

bonjour, je vois que tu as fait de belles contributions dans le domaine des armoiries. Puis-je te passer commande pour illustrer un article dans WP pour les armes de la maison de Gournay ?

Selon l'armorial de Lorraine, les Gournay portent "de gueules, à trois tours d'argent mises en bandes, maçonnées de sable".

Merci.

--Diligent (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: categorisation of labels by points

Hello Caranorn, thank you for your comment, I answered it on my talk page.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of derivatives

Hello Caranorn, before you go, plese give me your opinion about how derivatives of COAs should be categorized.

I've seen and used a number of versions:

• 1) Derivatives of COA of X
• 2) "Lion of X in heraldry" or any other similar use
• 3) Placing all the derivatives under "Cots of arms of X"

3) is an awful choice, since it becomes an epic work to sort out what is an actual COA of X and what is a derivative.

I personally like 2), which is a very straightforward way of categorizing derivatives without falling into the error of inventing an imaginary "COA of X" that once used that lion (or other charge) and propagated it down. However, it sometimes represents more than the lion, as in the case of Nassau. It seems to me that the lion of Nassau without the billeté wouldn't be the lion of Nassau, so I tentatively am categorizing all those derivatives under "lion of Nassau in heraldry", instead of a dubious "Derivatives of the COA of Nassau" - there seems to have been a lot of different COAs of Nassau.

1) may prove a bit hard to use, and prone to confusion and errors, thus I'm trying to use it only a when a known and distinct source of the derivatives is available. This is the case of the so called "COA of Anjou" (which led me to the labels). According to the armorial in wiki-fr, this is the coat of arms of Charles I of Naples after 1246, so I'm thinking in something like "Derivatives of the coat of arms of Charles I of Naples (after 1246)", which is an awfully long description, but sound better than the ambiguous "Derivatives of the coat of arms of Anjou" and seems to be less prone to confusion.

What do you think of this case of Anjou, and what are your general thoughts on this matter?-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Lets start with the Anjou arms. I'm assuming you mean these (randomly chosen file). In french this would simply be identified as Anjou. It is obviously in the first place the arms of France ancient marked for cadency by inclusion of the label gules. So this particular image should be categorised as Category:Coat of arms of Anjou a subcategory of Category:Coats of arms of Capetians (I would have preferred France for that category instead of Capetians, or a subcategory Category:Coat of Arms of France under Category:Coats of arms of Capetians, reason being that Dreux and Vermandois among otehrs while Capetians did not use the arms of France ancient or modern)). I assume what you then were talking about is Anjou further cadenced or differentiated like this example . I'm not sure what to call subcategories beyong that point, except for simple dynastic examples like Category:Coat of Arms of Anjou-Durazzo which should already remove most derivatives from the Anjou category. I will try to think about this some more, I don't really use the word derivative in a category for coats of arms as to me it sounds unheraldic (but I never before though about the word in that context).

As to the Nassau arms. My first thought was to agree with you that all lions of Nassau are indeed on a field billeté but then I noticed , in this case the billeté is replaced by a semé de croisettes au pied fiché, but this could be an error representing actually the arms of Saarbrücken and not Nassau Saarbrücken which seems to be quartering Nassau and Saarbrücken. So I'm inconclusive on this too.

But I can clarify two other related examples which you haven't raised yet. The lion of Limburg can be both single tailed and double tailed as those arms evolved over time, so the lion of Limbourg's definition is a lion rampant gules. The same for the lion of Luxembourg (subcategory for Limbourg) which would be a barry argent and azure a lion rampant gules overall (so the field is the main defining character for Luxembourg, no specification for the number of bars as it historically varied from 10 to upwards of 22, no specification of the number of tails as that also varied with time). So the lion of Limbourg category could include both single tailed and double tailed variants as well as cadenced or differentiated arms such as Berg (always double tailed), Luxembourg (single or double tail, always barry), Monschau/Montjoie, Fauquemont/Valkenburg, Luxembourg-Ligny (single or double tail, argent or barry argent and azure) etc.

I hope this reply is somewhat helpful and not just plain confusing. I will try to look this up in various treaties about heraldry, though I'm not sure this is ever a topic in and of itself and I don't have much time for this kind of research right now (though it's an interesting question).--Caranorn (talk) 09:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Addendum. The defining character for the lion of Nassau could be that it's on a semy field (semé). That's assuming that Saarbrücken and Dillingen are secondary branches of the house of Nassau.--Caranorn (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Though I still don't know how to do it in the best way, things are a bit more clearer, at least. I became aware a while ago - probably while I prepared the article on Baron Kohene for wiki pt last year (still unpublished, but will run for featured article) - that there are often something close to a genealogy of coats of arms in heraldry, and that too is sometimes apparent in the French Armorials published in wiki-fr, and even in the Portuguese coat of arms - the castles on the bordure, for instance, are those of Castile, brought by by Afonso III, who got them from his mother. This is one type of "derivative" (I don't like the word as well, it reminds me of cheese being a derivative of milk). Another type of "derivative" may appear when the entire, unchanged, coat of arms is used in a quarter or inescutcheon. These are the two main cases of "derivatives" that I'm trying to organize.

Taking Anjou as an example, "Coat of arms of Anjou" would contain only the exact original coat of arms of Anjou, and all other variations and inclusions would fall into the "derivatives". The same for it's parent category, "Coat of arms of France", of which Anjou would be itself a "derivative". There is a problem, however, with the "France ancien" and "France moderne" variations. I still don't know how to solve it in a way that would be both correct and easy to use.

My principal objective here is to organize the coats of arms so that it would be practical and easy to classify the new ones that are uploaded, to detect errors and problems in the ones already uploaded, and to place everything in a way that would make it easy to find and use the correct coat of arms in the wikipedias and other works. Even more, I expect that such an organization applied to a universal database of coats of arms, something that perhaps never existed until Commons appeared, may lead not only to the identification of the "mysterious" coats of arms on our streets, walls and books that in the past remained illusive and unidentified, but also allow new findings and conclusions in heraldry studies.

This don't mean, of course, that original research should be allowed here. In fact I see it as a great danger, and source of conflict, though I escaped such debates until now, thanks God (with the exception of the Timor COA last year, but I was more of an observer than intervenor, as well as a fake Wettin-Bragança COA two years ago). I believe that in France heraldic rules were quite strict, so maybe that would not be such a problem with French COA, but the Portuguese "Rei-de-Armas" were often careless when designing and attributing the arms, and many heraldic errors were made official, and many coats of arms, such as the "Silva", were used in families that had no known relation to the original bearers of the COA, only for the reason that they shared the same surname. Therefore "derivative" should imply only an heraldic genealogy, and not a real genealogy.

This is all I have in mind in this "derivatives" conundrum. If you find something in the books that helps solving it, starting with a more appropriate name or names, please tell me.

Thanks again, -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the appropriate english heraldry word for the various types of combinations of arms would be marshalling. Marshalling is/was used to denote marriages, inheritances, other aquisitions, offices held etc. Quartering, dimidation, impalement would be some of the ways of marshalling by incorporating several older arms into a single new coat of arms. Another system for marshalling would be compounded arms, that is adding elements of older coats of arms to a new one (as in my Luxembourg arms example where the supposed barry or and gules of the first dynasty of the counts was combined with the argent a lion rampant gules of the dukes of Limbourg to form barry argent and azure; a lion rampant gules, crowned or overall (the crown is believed to be either from an early, today unknown, coat of arms of Namur or to represent a claimed status of princes of the HRE as Namur was recently elevated from county to margraviat), also your example of the Portugese arms incorporating the earlier escutcheons and the Castilian castles).

So maybe the categories should be something like Category:Marshalled coats of arms of Anjou. But I'm not familiar enough with english heraldry to be certain that'd be appropriate wording.

And yes, a universal database as you describe would be very useful and commons with it's large base of contributors could stand at chance at achieving such (indeed without original research). I'm not sure heraldic rules in France were any stricter than elsewhere. Rather the first somewhat formalised system of heraldry originated in northern France and a strong tradition persisted in the region and immediately neighbouring areas (as far as the Rhine to the east, certainly all of England to the north). In more recent centuries as heraldry's primary purpouse of easier identification of combattants declined, heraldic quality likewise declined in France just like other countries. One advantage to french heraldry might be that its blasonning are rather precise (english heraldry can at times be more precise, at others less) and arms are somewhat easier to identify. Research in the past 50 or so years has also led to good "genealogies" I guess of arms, that is demonstrating their step by step evolution (also groupings by families of arms).

But I'm disgressing now and I'm not used to writing this much english. I hope the term marshalling will be of help to you. I just checked that my email settings here on wikipedia are set correctly. If you have more questions and I don't react here on my talk page within a few days you can always write me directly.--Caranorn (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on what you wrote, I consulted Boutell's 1863 book of heraldry, which indeed includes "compounded arms" inside marshalling [1]. This happens also in one 2008 book by Jacqueline Fearn on heraldry [2]. I believe there is enough basis now to start replacing the non heraldic term "derivative" (though occasionally, colloquially used in the books) with "marshalling" and "marshalled". Thank you very much, my question was answered, indeed. As for writing in English, you can write me in French if you will, as I understand it perfectly (though my written French was deemed to be "outrageous" and "too literary", probably because I often think in Portuguese while writing in French, something that doesn't happen with English, which produces some very strangely sounding compositions).-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Luxembourg_City_Kirchberg2_fromBock.jpg

File:Luxembourg_City_Kirchberg2_fromBock.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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!

84.62.204.7 21:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Luxembourg_City_Kirchberg1_fromBock.jpg

File:Luxembourg_City_Kirchberg1_fromBock.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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!

84.62.204.7 21:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice work, was also hoping to find the Auxbrebis coat of arms Xis73 (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2015 (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:Luxembourg City Rodangemonument.jpg

Yours sincerely, A1Cafel (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)