Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] FOTW images

The removal of images originating from the Flags Of The World website is well under way apparantly. I see images have been deleted from Royal Standard of Norway for one. The decition to delete them has been made and it was probably the right one, but now many articles might be left almost pointless. Replacement images should have been found or made beforehand and are now certainly urgently needed. How do we deal with this situation? Inge 00:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I could take my digital camera and take pictures of flags. Seems better than nothing.--Bedford 00:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
That is a good idea. I must admit I am a bit annoyed with the deletion of the somewhat tedious work I put in when creating List of flags of Norway. That article has suffered quite a bit and I hope it can be rebuilt some day. Inge 00:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The best solution in the long run would in my opinion be if someone could create fre-use images to replace the deleted ones.Inge 01:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, with so many being unoriginal three stipes up and down, that shouldn't be that hard.--Bedford 01:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I created a bunch of Norwegian flags, mostly the military ones (and sorry about the deletion, I was the one who mostly did them). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I see that it had to be done and I am not annoyed with the people doing it:). Do you think that the other deleted flags of Norway will be recreated sometime soon? Inge 09:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The Flag of Denmark article also suffered pretty badly when a copyvio was deleted from Commons, so the "who may use what" section is pretty useless now. I think I could find most of the images or scan them from books from the 1950s, but I'm not sure if we can claim fair use for so many images in one article. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
With or without the pictures, that section really needs to include descriptions of the flags in words. JPD (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I know, it is on my list. I had been thinking about creating a similar list of Danish flags, but I abandoned that idea when I saw what had happend with the Norwegian material. Perhaps we could get help from Commons:WikiProject Flags ? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, though I am also part of that Wikiproject too. I been getting a lot of folks asking to draw stuff in SVG; just give me time folks. I know what yall want, but just finding time to sit down and play with inkscape is the hard part. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Coat of arms" or "Coat of Arms" ?

I just noticed the new categories listed to the project page, and they reminded me of an old oddity. Sure, it is a minor matter, but perhaps it would be be an idea to settle from the beginning if we should write "Coat of arms" or "Coat of Arms"? It seems to me that the standard most commonly used is the lowercase version (although the actual headline in the article space can use capitalised forms, e.g. "National Coat of Arms of Denmark" in the article space but "Coat of arms of Denmark" as the actual article name). However, I've noticed that the articles on Polish heraldry apparently use capitalized names, which I believe is a former standard. I personally prefer lowercase forms in the article names, but do anybody have any strong feelings about this? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I rechecked this one and apparently the Polish material was renamed less than two weeks ago (I should learn to check such things). Perhaps a standard actually exits? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at Category_talk:National_coats_of_arms. The consensus there was for arms (lowercase). Dr pda 16:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if Wikipedia was programmed to automatically detect and accept capitalization variances such as this, making the page utilize both names. It gets annoying creating redirect pages for each capitalization variance. --Dulcimerist 22:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heraldry Portal...

The Heraldry Portal is linked to by this wikiproject. I know that the person that started the portal has left the Wikipedia project. Is there any chance that "WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology" can help manage the portal? I updated some things this past month, but didn't get it all done.--dave-- 18:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be natural for this project to adopt the heraldry portal and if the mood is there maybe convert it to a heraldry and vexillology portal (at least for the short term). It will add to the administrative side of things, but I am not too conserned. It seems to have functioned well up to now (I only recently discovered it) and the users involved with the portal seem to be a great resource. I believe this project has great potential. Espeshially if you just look at the number of users who have included the User flags interest template on their user page we have a large potential member mass. I have already extended invitations to the users of page one on the list of those using the template. Hopefully we already have a few devoted enthousiasts willing to put in some time among our members (it seems so) :). Inge 13:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The consensus at the portal seems to be for adoption. Can we delegate the responsibilities of managing the portal to the members of the wikiproject?--dave-- 01:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Heraldry?...

The Heraldry of the USA request has been changed to American Heraldry. I know that folks have probably discussed this before, and I know its been covered on rec.heraldry and maybe at the AHS, but is it accurate to call the heraldry of the USA by the phrase American Heraldry to the exclusion of Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, etc?--dave-- 00:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Both of those seem to be dead. So... what's the question? The article ought to be Heraldry of the United States. Evertype
I think the reason for putting American heraldry was by analogy with the other existing articles/redlinks, which are of the form (National adjective) heraldry, i.e Polish heraldry, Norwegian heraldry, rather than Heraldry of X. I would be inclined to stick with the former, for the reason that something like Scottish heraldry would seem to also encompass the use of heraldy by people of Scottish descent no longer in Scotland, whereas Heraldry of Scotland doesn't. As a compromise, how about United States heraldry?
Also, while on the topic of putative Heraldry by country articles, I think it would be a good idea to decide on some sort of standard features these should contain. How about
  • Origins/History
  • Usage of arms(by whom? nobility/gentry/towns/corporations/anyone)
  • Regulation (uncontrolled/government dept/law/heralds)
  • Distinctive Features of that country's heraldry
  • Current Usage
Comments? Dr pda 16:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't use American heraldry as American could mean more than one thing. I am also not so sure about United States heraldry as there is at least one other United States, but maybe now I am being a bit over cautios. I suspect a naming convention on this issue already exists and if so we should follow that.
I think having a recomended standard layout for the articles is a good idea and the points you give seem to fit most articles. Inge 21:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
If Category:United States is any guide, it seems like people try to avoid the word "American" in this case. I would personally prefer one of the "United States" versions. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that "United States Heraldry" would work. I also like the basic structure that Doc PDA has suggested for the Heraldry by country articles. Those points should cover the needs for most articles well.--dave-- 20:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I have changed the request to United States Heraldry as it seems to be agreeable to those who have weighed in so far. Maybe a final conclution could be made after the article is created? Inge 12:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to use a template?

I cannot figure it out how to fill in the template: {{Infobox RomanianCoA}}! HELP!

You need to specify values for each of the parameters, i.e. the things that appear in triple braces like {{{towns}}}. For example {{Infobox RomanianCoA|towns=London, Paris, New York|families=Smith,Jones}}. Also, are all the details in this infobox relevant to Romanian heraldry? It looks like it has been adapted from the Polish CoA infobox; Polish heraldry is quite different from that of other European countries in that many unrelated families use a single coat of arms, there are only a few hundred coats of arms in use, and each coat of arms has a name.
Are you planning to put this on more than one page? If so you would probably want to have a parameter for the image (otherwise the same image would always appear). If this is just going to appear in the Coat of arms of Romania article, then maybe it is not necessary to have a template, and you could just copy and paste the contents of the infobox template to the page. --Dr pda 16:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Where can I find out what possible values are for the {{Template:National flag infobox}}? The simple example is misleading. Apparently there are "hidden" options, such as "Symbol =", but I can't figure out what to put there. If I omit it, it gives me a "de jure" symbol. I'd like to add others. --Wirespot 07:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The best way to find out all the parameters is to click on the edit tab of the template and have a look for things like {{{something}}}. I think {{{Symbol}}} is the only other parameter for the national flag infobox. It is designed to display the images shown in the 'Other symbols' section at Flag terminology#Vexillogical symbols. To use one of these symbols, put the link to the image as the value of the symbol parameter, e.g.
Symbol = [[Image:IFIS_Vertical_exclusive.png]] |

To have no symbol, put

Symbol = |

If you omit the symbol parameter, you get the "de jure" symbol, as you found. There should really be some instructions on the template page; I'm quite busy at the moment otherwise I would add them myself --Dr pda

OK, thanks. But can I only add one symbol? I've tried adding several but only the first is shown. The symbols are not mutually exclusive, there should be a way to show several at once. Perhaps I'm not using the right separator or something? I've tried separating the images with nothing, space, comma, no luck so far. --Wirespot 12:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think this might be caused by the div element in the inforbox, which has width=56px and overflow hidden. It is probably a good idea to change this to allow more than one symbol. JPD (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done that. Hopefully I haven't broken anything. There were two DIV's there, with the apparent purpose of overlaying a link to "Flag terminology" over the entire cell. The 56px limitation effectively allowed only the FIAV code and one other symbol, since they are 23px each. I've eliminated the DIV's, there's a link on "Use" anyway so it won't be missed. The new template appears to work well, I've checked it on the pages of Flag of Romania, Flag of Mexico and Flag of Belarus, the only ones(!) who are using it. There was no other way, there can be as many as 7 or so symbols at the same time, I would rather let them wrap then impose a fixed width. --Wirespot 15:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needed images

Is it possible to display a template both on Commons and on en: Wikipedia? I thought it would be cool if we could create the needed images section as a template which could be displayed on Commons:WikiProject Flags as well as here. That way you would alert both projects, but would only have to make your request once. Inge 16:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the Template help earlier for another reason, and the answer is apparently 'no', so we'll have to think of another way to do things. Regarding coat of arms images, we should communicate with the French and German projects, who are also doing this. Dr pda 20:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
How about using something like a stub? Just about every image that we require fits on a page of its own somewhere. Would it be possible to create a stub that says "This article requires a flag (or coat of arms).", and assign a category to it. Then you can just look at the pages listed under that category - and that would become the "needed images" section. Does that sounds reasonable? — 52 Pickup 16:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goals and tasks

Now that we've got a reasonable number of members, it would probably be a good idea to direct this manpower in some way, to achieve the project's stated goals of improving Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. Identify and create/improve articles needing creation/improvement is a good general principle, but I feel something a bit more specific is needed. I have a few thoughts

  • I like the way the Chemistry Wikiproject has set goals like write articles on 30 important concepts like solution, write articles for 10 major classes of chemical reactions like nucleophilic subsititution. The 'heraldry by country' series is a good start in this direction; maybe we need to think about others
  • If we start listing all the articles for creation/improvement on the project page it could become quite long. I've created a sub-page at /Tasks for this instead. If people like this idea we can modify the project page accordingly. Maybe a template like Template:WikiProjectCSBTasks which people could put on their user pages would also be a good idea.
  • Regarding improving articles, do we want to take the route of Wikipedia 1.0-style assessment (i.e. this article has been rated Start-class on the project assessment scale sort of thing, which I'm sure everyone has seen)? This has the advantage that (a) you get a count of how many articles within the project's scope are FA-class, GA-class, stubs etc (with a cool little box updated daily by a bot) (b) you can see the progress the project is making, in terms of the number of articles being created, or moving from stub-class to start-class etc, (c) the articles are placed in categories according to quality, which makes finding (for example) a GA-class heraldry/vexillology article easier. The downside is that it does require some work to give a rating to all the articles in the scope of WP:HV (there are about 900 with Template:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology at the moment, but if everyone did one a day it would still only take a month). If we want to go down this road, I can make the necessary changes to Template:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology.
  • Maybe some sort of numerical goal like getting 1 (2? 5?) article to GA-status per month? As a long term goal it might be nice to get Heraldry and Vexillology to FA status.

Comments? Dr pda 20:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I also feel it is time to direct some of the resources we have and I like your suggestions. Inge 15:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I am looking forward to see this suggestion implemented. As seen below other users are looking for a place to hand in their requests. I have a long list of images I would like to request, but adding them to the main page would make it very cluttered so I will add them to the /Tasks sub-page just to list them somewhere. Inge 12:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Which suggestions specfically were you referring to? I've now linked the Tasks subpage to the project page in the Open Tasks section, and it seems to be getting a bit of activity. I had held off implementing any of the other things I suggested since I only had one response (yours). Dr pda 12:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heraldic Crosses

[edit] Saint Andrew's Cross & Saint Patrick's Cross

I marked Saint Andrew's Cross with an expert tag, requesting help to distinguish between the saltire and Saint Andrew's Cross. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Caranorn for calling by to help.
Now we have a new issue: a requested move to Saltire. Please discuss at Talk:Saint Andrew's Cross --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For completeness, we would also need to merge the article Saint Patrick's Flag (which redirects from Saint Patrick's Cross), since the design and use is pretty much identical to Saint Andrew's Cross. --Dulcimerist 22:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This debate concluded with a move of the merged article to Saltire. Saint Patrick's Flag was retained as an article in its own right. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cross Stubs

A discussion on heraldic cross stubs has been started in the Cercelée article. Some heraldic crosses have enough information for a full article, while some only have a sentence or two on their own pages. Additionally, it would be nice to have some added uniformity on some of these; as some designs contain the word "Cross" in the title, while some do not. Thanks. --Dulcimerist 22:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flags and coats of arms for former countries

At the moment, I'm working on restarting WikiProject Former countries. I am keen to have the entries on former nations (and their subdivisions) interact with other relevant groups. For every entry that we create or update, I would like it if we could store the flags and coats of arms in an easily-accessible place (similar to placing maps in the Atlas portal). Also, it would be good if we could build a list of such images that are still missing - so the flag and heraldry experts can help with filling in the gaps.

Since this Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject (and the Heraldry portal) concerns itself primarily with flags and coats of arms for entities that exist today, can anyone sugest a place for images (and requests for images) of flags and coats of arms of former states without confusing things too much with modern entities? -- 52 Pickup 10:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This project concerns itself with all flags and coats of arms and related topics so you have come to the right place:) I suggest creating a Gallery of flags of former countries and a Gallery of coats of arms of former countries if you want a easy place to find all such images here on wikipedia. If the images are uploaded to Commons categories with the same topic could be created for them. Given time an article for each flag and coat of arms will be created and those articles will be placed in collective categories as well. A list of missing images should be under way in connection with this project. Inge 11:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree completely. This project also deal with the insignia of former entities etc. I have mostly tagged the articles on modern entities since this work takes quite a while doing it by hand, so I have mostly ignored the former entities so far. These articles are also fewer in number and more difficult to find, but they definitely belong here as well. It looks like a flag gallery already exists (Flags of formerly independent states) which could use more material. There might be something here: List of flags#Historic flags. A gallery of coats of arms is a great idea. E.g. there is a gallery on double-headed eagle. If such anybody creates such a page, please name it consistently with the flag page, i.e. Coats of arms of formerly independent states. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 12:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Making the entries on former countries easier to find is something that the Former Countries project will try to take care of (i hope!). Setting up a place for them in the flag collections and the Atlas and Heraldry portals should be a big help.
Inge, regarding your list of missing images: would it make sense to tag entries that are missing images with a stub or category of some sort? Or is this something that is already being done? I'm new here...
Valentinian, After looking through the pages you suggested, I have a few comments. The existance of both List of flags#Historic flags and Flags of formerly independent states is a bit confusing and disjointed. It would probably be a lot more streamlined if these entries were combined somehow. Not sure how exaclty. Similarly, the existance of both Template:Nationalflags and Template:Lists of flags is also a bit disjointed. Reconciling the two would go a long way to making it easier to find images. I am currently working on the former states of Germany (and the provinces of those states) so I expect to have a heap of images ready for listing soon.
For a coats of arms gallery, I found this: Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms. I found this from the German heraldry portal (de:Portal:Wappen), but there was no link to this from the English one. That should be fixed (for those who have not seen it, the German portal is a bit older than the English one and is definitely worth a look). A Gallery of former state coats of arms page (or something like that) would fit in nicely.
If we can agree on the best way to incorporate flags and coats of arms for former states with the currently existing images, I can then set out the necessary guidelines for entries on former countries.- 52 Pickup 14:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the list of images, the "List of flags" is merely an attempt to build a list of all the flag images found on Wikipedia, so it is natural that the historical flags are there as well. But we could add the gallery you found to the {{Nationalflags}}. The future coat of arms gallery would fit very nicely there as well. We can easily add both. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 20:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding requesting images; We have established this tasks section in our project where image requests can be made. For general image requests Wikipedia:Requested pictures is the place to go. The template {{Reqimageother}} where you add "|the national flag of xxx" or something similar can be added to the talk page of an article needing images. Commons:WikiProject Flags is also a place to request flags. One single place where we can request a flag or CoA and the request will be met swiftly does not exist. I have not figured out which of these procedures gives you an image first, but I suspect advertising your request on all of them will be most effective. Given time our project's alternative will be the best one :) Inge 15:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition to building the list here, would it be a good idea to make flag and CoA versions of {{Reqimageother}} and have them link to either a new category or to this project? It might make things a little easier for you and the project in general - 52 Pickup 13:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
A parameter could be added to the main project template ({{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology}}) which will produce a notice banner and put the article in a common category for WP:HV articles needing an image. Inge 18:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer the last solution to have as few templates as possible. Such a feature already exists on {{TrainsWikiProject}} which also has implemented quality ratings. For its use in practice, see Talk:Amagerbro station. The code here also groups the articles in need of images into a separate category, so that problem is taken care of as well.

The idea to link to the portal is also pretty neat. I know the Heraldry portal doesn't include flags, but I'd really like to give it a little PR, so I'll add it to the template as an experiment. Feel free to remove it again, if anyone disagrees. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 20:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. I have given the template a try (see Talk:Province of Jülich-Cleves-Berg). This page discusses the province itself and there is no separate entry for the heraldry (actually, i don't even know what it looks like in this case). Is the usage of the template correct here? If so, it is a very simple and effective way of reporting missing images. - 52 Pickup 17:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal and Templates

I've gone ahead and converted Portal:Heraldry to a Heraldry and Vexillology portal, which can be reached at Portal:Heraldry and Vexillology. (This is just a redirect to Portal:Heraldry, since I didn't want to have to move all the subpages of which it is composed). I've added vexillological material, but I don't have much expertise in this area, so those who do, please have a look and make sure the important points are covered. I hope members of the project will suggest articles for DYK and Selected Article/Picture/Biography for the monthly updates (and maybe even do the monthly updates! I've just done this month's). The actual updating of the portal doesn't take long providing there are suggestions there. Oh, and I haven't updated the heraldry to do list at the portal to a H&V to do list yet.

I also like the idea of adding a template to the project banner for image required, and as I mentioned up the page I think rating the quality of articles would also be useful. I'm happy to make the necessary changes to the template, but I won't get to it before the weekend. Someone else is welcome to beat me to it :) --Dr pda 02:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment department

I have now made the changes to the template and created the pages and categories needed for this part of the project. I am not good at these things so I just copied the one from Trains and changed it to fit us. I hope everything whent OK. The page itself isn't pretty yet, but that is because there are links to the statistics which are to be created by a bot. If left alone that should be OK by tomorrow. If everything is OK it's just time to dig in and assess articles :) Inge 11:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And the requested image parameter is implemented as well. Inge 11:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice! I've tweaked the code a bit so the "requested images" list is shown in bold. Now we just have to wait to see if Mathbot can log the assessments automatically or if we have to tweak the code a little. It looks like the bot already logs more than 120 projects (Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index), so if we have any problems, we can borrow some code here. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 20:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like we still need to do a little tweaking of the code. The bot found the category, but it didn't generate a report. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 07:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Forget the last post. Mathbot was a bit slow generating the statistics, but it works! Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 15:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian coats of arms

I've made a template for articles referring to Australian coats of arms. Should this be shown on the project page? See for yourself:

v • d • e
Coats of arms of Australia
Commonwealth of Australia
States, territories & capitals
ACT Queensland New South Wales Northern Territory South Australia Tasmania Victoria Western Australia
Canberra Brisbane Sydney Darwin Adelaide Hobart Melbourne Perth
External territories
Cocos (Keeling) Islands • Heard Island and McDonald Islands • Norfolk Island

--R.carroll 21:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I've added both this and the similar UK template to the list of templates. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 15:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging talk pages and assessing articles (copied from WP:Lithuania and elsewhere)

Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution
Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

  • Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
  • Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 13:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have copied this post from the talk page of WP:Lithuania. Kingboyk has posted this on a large number of project pages. I'm a great fan of AWB for repetitative tasks, but I have not tried this feature. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 11:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
However, it looks like we'll have to add a "attention needed" parameter to the template like the current "Requested images" feature to make this thing work properly. Since it looks like a standard feature, I don't see any reason not to include it here as well. I'll try to look into this issue later. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 12:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be great if it could tag and assess the stubs automatically for us. Inge 12:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the Generic plugin page more closely, it says that strictly speaking the attention and needs-infobox parameters are not required for the plugin to work, because the MediaWiki software will ignore any parameters given to the {{WikiProject Heraldry and Vexillology}} template which have not been implemented in that template. In fact looking at the list of example configuration files at the bottom of that page, one of them specifically doesn't have the attention parameter implemented.
Regarding auto tagging of stubs, I would be inclined to do it manually. The auto tagging of stubs for other projects, at least that I have seen, just assesses any page with a stub tag as a stub class article. However looking at some of the H&V articles it seems there are many articles which I would call Start-class which still have stub tags, and would thus get wrongly assessed. If everyone pitches in, the assessment shouldn't take that long. Dr pda 13:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That would normally also be my first hunch, and such a feature should definitely be used with caution. However, it seemed a good opportunity to update the template code, so I have added support for this and a few other features. I didn't add the "request infobox" parameter, since MILHIST doesn't use it, and my code is based on that template. If this feature is activated, it looks like Kingboyk needs to compile a DLL, btw. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 16:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Update. The Needed-Class works now, and so does the infobox-needed parameter (thanks to Dr pda). The latter feature is mostly to ensure compatibility with Kingboyk's bot. Taskforces and collaborations etc. are also supported should we chose to implement them. The code is essentially the one used by Milhist, but modified. I have skipped Milhist's system of categorizing infobox-requests by taskforce. 1) we don't have them at the moment, 2) it would take a lot of work. I still believe Kingboyk would have to compile a DLL to make the bot work here, btw. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A few points:

  • "Auto-stub" is possibly a bit misnamed, as it really means "add auto=yes and class=Stub to the template, if no assessment has already been made". Therefore, it should only be run on stub categories. The plugin doesn't look at the article, that would require extra downloads and it wouldn't add much: stub templates put the article into a stub category so it's more sensible to have the operator tell the plugin it's tagging stubs.
  • needs-infobox and attention are only used for manual assessments, which is where you read the article in AWB and then the plugin pops up an assessment form. Checkboxes on that form have options for needs infobox and needs attention, if the template doesn't have those params it won't actually break anything.
  • to use the plugin to simply tag talk pages, you don't really need to have any parameters other than class=. Of course in such a case you're not really getting much benefit over using vanilla AWB. (You're getting some benefits, I've already written the regexes for you, bad tags get identified, you get some extra status info and a pretty LED ;))

Hope that helps. If you can help make any of this clearer in the documentation please edit away, it's a wiki after all. --kingboyk 14:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple more things, sorry:

  • I spammed the message to every WikiProject which was on the Mathbot list and which:
  • seemed to be active
  • seemed to have a reasonable number of articles left to tag
  • had a straightforward template

Not sure which of those criteria caused me to pass you by. Perhaps you weren't using Mathbot at the time.

Glancing at {{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology}} it looks like you're good to go. Straightforward template, no workgroups, you don't need any special programmatic support.

I'd recommend renaming the template to something much shorter though, e.g. {{WPHeraldry}}, bcos that's one hell of a name for editors to remember and type! --kingboyk 14:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel the benfits of using a bot to tag HV articles already tagged with s stub template as stub-class outweigh the risks of mislabelling some articles. They are in that case mislabelled to start with and must be dealt with manually anyway. When it comes to renaming the template I suggest {{WPHV}} as that is the abbrievation we have generally used so far and it includes vexillology. Or is there some rule implied that there has to be a word in there? I also wonder if renaming the template will cause a lot of work or is there some clever way of doing this?Inge 14:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Doing the rename as such is pretty simple. AWB can do it; type the (current) name of the template, use the "what transcludes here" feature to make it create a list of articles using the template, and ask it to replace {{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology with {{NewNameHere}} and {{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology| with {{NewNameHere| . I can easily do it but trouble is that I'm a bit short for time these days ... Second problem is that I don't have a bot account, so I am not allowed to make it an automated process, which means that I have to confirm every edit manually and not make more than a few edits per minute. Which is somewhat annoying given that we're talking about 1,200 articles. Perhaps we could ask User:Alai? Alaibot does find and replace on WP:WSS.
Regarding a name, I can only think of WPFlag, but such a name wouldn't be very accurate. WPHV could work. I don't know if a template redirect is at all possible? I have somewhat mixed feelings about auto-tagging the stubs myself. The problem is that stub sorters weren't invited when the definition of "stub-class" was created, so I'm not sure the two match completely. Over at WP:WSS, our definition is pretty much that a stub has 10 sentences or less and that it clearly needs expansion. A few stub sorters narrow this down to "three sentences max." Depending on context, the definition can be flexible. Some articles have no or next to no text but contain a giant infobox. They are normally counted as stubs as well. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 15:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to do anything special at all actually, just rename it and Mediawiki will leave behind a redirect. Existing instances will continue to work, courtesy of the redirect. No need for an AWB run just to rename it. Also, if using my plugin in generic template mode tell it the new name is the "preferred name", tell it the old name too, and it will rename any instances it finds using the old name. You'll end up catching and renaming most if not all templates using the old name at some point. You can name the template whatever you like provided the name you choose isn't already being used.
Fair enough on the stub feature, I always knew it wouldn't get full acceptance and I'm surprised actually at how much acceptance it's got. Take it or leave it, the choice is entirely yours. I think, basically, for very large projects such as WPBio it's just impractical to assess everything manually (see the FAQ about this on my bot page). Smaller projects like WPBeatles do it all manually (well, I assessed all articles manually). --kingboyk 18:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking captions in galleries

I find quite confusing the "Flag" of "Entity" (where "Flag" is linked the the Flag of Entity page, and "Entity" is linked as one might expect) formatting used in some of the flag image galleries, e.g., Gallery of sovereign state flags. I expect many readers would expect Flag to the linked to Flag page, and thus don't click on that link -- which is the only direct route to the page that actually explains the image. As flag galleries are primarily about flags, and only secondarily about the entities they represent, I propose that each caption as a whole bring the reader directly to the relevant Flag of Entity page. Only if that page does not exist does it make sense to link only the entity name in the caption to the page for that entity itself, e.g. Flag of "Entity". Do others agree? --ScottMainwaring 14:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Shetland
Flag of Shetland
I find the practice very useful. It is very likely in my view at least that someone browsing a flag gallery might want to find out more about the particular flag they are seeing and the entity it represents. The article Flag should only be linked to in the top text of the gallery: This gallery contains flags with crosses. If you consistently link Flag of to the spesific flag's page and entitiy to the entity, possible confusion will at least decrease.Inge 15:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, I should have indicated "Flag of" rather than "Flag" was being linked in the style you like. However, I still maintain that this adds more complexity and risk of link-following mistakes than it returns in terms of direct access to entity pages. And my point about the "Flag" or "Flag of" links is not that they should be linked to the Flag page, but that readers might reasonably expect that they will be linked there — and so avoid clicking on them. --ScottMainwaring 22:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ship crests

We're having a discussion over at Wiki Project Ships about ship crests. We could use some heraldry expertise in improving the article at US Navy Ship Seals. Everything from what the title of the article should be to some content. Our general consensus right now is that a listing of all ships' crests is not desired, but a more general article about the process of how one is developed and approved might be valuable. Thoughts? Feel free to post here or at the other project page. Thanks. Jinian 13:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what the standard terminology is in ship circles, but from a heraldic standpoint, I'd say that these are more badges than seals. There may be more specialized terminology at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships, though.--dave-- 21:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blazon Standard...

From the heraldic point of view, I wonder if we could use the project to develop a "house style" of blazon. It would be nice to show some consistency in the way that coats of arms are blazoned from one article to the next. Any thoughts on capitalization v. lowercase, italics v. quotation marks, etc? I've got my own style that I'd like to see adopted, but wanted to hear how others do it.--dave-- 21:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd particularly like it if I could post here for someone to look over my English blazoning (I only posted Belgian and maybe one or two Luxembourgish blazons for municipalities where i did not include blazonning) in the future. I'm much more used to French blazonning and bet I make quite a few errors in English.--Caranorn 22:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As a way to start the process of developing a standard "house style" of blazon, here is what I generally use. As opposed to something like:

  • "Gules on a bend or between two martlets argent three annulets of the first"

I would blazon a shield as:

  • Gules on a Bend Or between two Martlets Argent three Annulets Gules

I propose that the Wikiproject adopt this as the standard blazoning format for heraldry articles.

  1. Italics
  2. Capitalized Tinctures
  3. Capitalized Charges
  4. Repeated Tincture (as opposed to "of the first," "of the field")

If anyone has any other suggestions, I'd love to read them. As for the blazoning help request from Caranorn, I'll gladly check them out as I have time.--dave-- 21:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your standard looks pretty good to me. I like the italics to show that blazon is not "ordinary English" and the capitalized tinctures have the great advantage of enabling a distinction between "Or" and "or" - which is the main reason why I used capitalized forms on the blazon of the Danish royal arms where gold pops up all the time. I admit, this coat is probably one of the worst examples of gold appearing everywhere. The repeated tinctures look like the more user friendly solution - at least for non-native speakers like myself. :) I found your second version much easier to read. To make a long story short; I find the form used on Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom (or something similar) pretty easy to read. But I'd love to hear more views on this issue. Does any standard exist in the relevant English literature? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the English langauge standard differs from authority to authority and society to society. There has been some debate among different groups about what the standard should be. I, for one, don't like using punctuation if I can help it, but I concede that it is necessary for clarity at times. Clarity, in my opinion, ought to trump brevity (thus the avoidance of "of the first," etc.).--dave-- 00:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I like italics, and repeated tinctures. I remember reading somewhere early in my heraldic experience that 'of the first' etc was old-fashioned, or at least discouraged by that particular author; its only advantage is the lack of repetition, but I think this is outweighed by not having to hunt through a blazon for the tinctures, especially a complicated one. Repeating the tincture is shorter too.I don't mind too much about the capitalisation. Dr pda 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I sought the advice of a gentleman who works for the College of Arms this afternoon. He uses the standard proposed by --dave-- (with the exception of italics which I failed to mention). From a personal point of view, I think the proposed standard is the most user-friendly which would be the best solution for Wikipedia.
--R.carroll 17:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Well...if it's good enough for the CoA, then it is definitely good enough for me. I don't think that this needs to be a hard and fast rule. I think that there is necessarily some flexiblity in this issue. The clarity of the blazon should always trump whatever system or formula is devised.--dave-- 18:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the above sounds fine with one caveat. If we have the actual blazon from source it should obviously be rendered in that form of wording even if we can ital/capit to our format. Alci12 17:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of Arms of Luxembourg

In case anyone is interested, I just finished my blason project on the CoA of all 116 municipalities of Luxembourg, plus the state and royal family and some for the historians. You can have a look either on commons or my userpage. Cheers Spanish Inquisition 10:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work! The images are very nice. Interesting to see a large degree of varitaion on traditional design and at the same time modern topics are not banned :) Inge 11:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'll some day get the time to write a little history for each of those blazons/coats of arms. I scanned in the relevant book (from the national library) so I can look it all up whenever it's needed. Most of the traditionals designs are based on arms of pre-napoleonic nobility (some are actual medieval grants of arms (Vianden for instance). When the newest series of arms were granted particular care was paid to the fact that all (a few exceptions like Vianden) municipal coat of arms should be distinct from those of their former lords (as many municipalities had requested or even used). Oh and another source for the design of those arms were of course old city/town seals. Anyhow, Spanish Inquisition did a great job assembling the lot.--Caranorn 15:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3D looks

Hi all. Some time ago I fell in love with the French fr:Projet:Blasons and their 3d-stylish, uniform coats of arms. Since the guys at the French project prepared only one Blender template for the coats of arms (classic French-style shield), I asked Snargle for help and he modified the template they use to include other types of shields as well. That way I could prepare both standard CoAs , rectangular Polish style shields , rounded Finland-style shields and rectangular pointed shields . Unfortunately, for some strange reason I could not upload the template to wiki or to commons, as it seems that .blend files are unsupported. Any idea how could I provide the template to the community? //Halibutt 08:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.. Just noted that the fr:Projet:Blasons/Création guys have moved to a new svg format, which renders my question above obsolete. However, is there anyone here who could translate this to English so that we all could use the new method? //Halibutt 08:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to note that usually the shape of the shield is irrelevant and up to the artist rendering it. There are of course a few exceptions where shield shape is specified in the blazoning (a number of Belgian municipalities use lozanges which is fine by me, others use geminated shields (two or even three separate coats of arms, I wish they'd have combined those through traditional means)). Essentially the shield form has been influenced by fashion preferences, I personally tend to use 12-13th century style shields (elongated drop shape and cut off drop shape). Those you call rectangular Polish style shields have one advantage today, they make assembling quartered arms easier (you simply ignore the small tip and end up with an easily divisable rectangle), but luckily at least on the internet fashion is once again returning to the medieval styles. (Technically I could translate that page, but other then taking a rapid look at it I've never used it... and honestly I don't know whether I can find the time)--Caranorn 15:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This machine translation [1] from Google's Translate is reasonably understandable. Substitute shield for ecu, charge for furniture, coat of arms for blazon and template(?) for gauge . --Dr pda 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Caranorn, you're only partially right. What you wrote about shapes is generally true to most personal coats of arms, like mine for instance. However, most towns (at least in Poland), countries (at least in Europe), communities, communes, parishes, and other units of local administration have the blazon explicitly described. Moreover, there is a heraldic tradition. For instance in Poland (I know, I know, Polish heraldry is a bad example) we barely ever use the Norman type of shield and I would yet have to see a Polish CoA placed in it. Same for Italian style or German style (the latter was sometimes used in 16th century, but very seldom). Because of that a CoA of some Polish town placed in it, while not necessarily incorrect in heraldic terms, as this depends heavily on the formal blazoning, often described in the local laws, would look simply bizarre. Not to mention the obvious cases where the shape of the shield is explicitly described.
To make long thing short, the more shields we have the better, though in most cases a simple Mediaeval French or modern French would do. //Halibutt 19:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to note that I did mention particular shields described in the blazon in which case that one obviously has to be used. If a country's heraldic system prescribes (I'm not sure any are that strict) use of a particular shield that should also be used (not as strict as an actual listing in the blazon in my mind). Lastly, I agree that having a number of shield templates can only be positive.--Caranorn 20:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting volunteer artwork?

There are some talented artists rendering blazons and donating them as free images to Wikipedia. Is there a central list of requests for arms and flag images that artists watch? I would like to suggest a couple that would be useful for articles, and I have neither the talent nor knowledge to render them myself, but I don't want to spam this talk page. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to list them on the open tasks page for this project. Alternatively, if they're for specific articles you could tag the talk page of the article with {{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology}} template (if it's not already), and use the imageneeded and imagedetails parameters, e.g. {{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology|class=stub|imageneeded=yes|imagedetails=needs coat of arms image}}. This adds the article to the category Category:Heraldry and vexillology articles needing images. I don't know what visibility either of these places has. Depending on the specific images there may be other wiki-projects who could help - there are French (fr:Projet:Blasons) and German (de:Portal:Wappen) projects concentrating on the arms of those countries (and some others), and there's WikiProject Flags on Commons. Dr pda 00:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. To add to that excellent array, I have found another request list, at Wikipedia:Requested pictures/Graphics#Flags & Heraldry. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 00:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Knocking some of the requests out of the way and marking out already completed requests. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Articles

Hello Friends. The article John Vanbrugh is a long-featured article that is about a man who served at the College of Arms for a number of years. His article was recently added to the WikiProject, but I'm not sure whether to list it HERE, as his heraldic endeavors make up only a small part of his life narrative. Does this count as a "Featured articles about heraldry or vexillology?"--dave-- 01:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph on his heraldic career makes up a small part of the article, but it is within the scope of this project. I don't think it would do any harm to list him, even though it looks like heraldry wasn't the most important thing in his life... Inge 10:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and add him, then. Thanks!--dave-- 13:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heraldic crown

I have created the article Heraldic crown mainly from bits and pieces from other articles. So it needs some work, but I also wanted to know if the name is any good. I feel something else might be better, but I can't come up with anything. Any opinions and suggestions? Inge 14:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image requests for former country entries

Earlier, I asked about image requests and you gave me a few suggestions involving banners. So I placed the {{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology}} banner on a sample page that required a flag and coat of arms image - the Prussian Province of Jülich-Cleves-Berg. But this entry is not a heraldry entry, and so this banner is not really the right tool for the job. More complete entries on former countries and subdivisions (eg. the Prussian Province of Westphalia) contain the flag and coat of arms in an infobox - and the infobox automatically generated links below these images to specific pages describing these images. These new pages ARE heraldry entries, or at least will be once they are created.

And so I have taken the liberty of making two banners that are more suitable for such an entry - {{WPFC}} and {{WikiProject Prussia}}. They are almost completely based on your brilliant {{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology}} banner, but they are more suitable for the Former Countries and Prussian projects than I am involved with, as it also includes other details such as requests for maps. These banners include separate requests for flags and coats of arms which, when active, place the page in the same image-request categories as those used by the banner for THIS project.

These two projects are still in the early stages, and the banners have not been implemented yet. So I have two questions:

  1. Is it alright with you if I include these links to this project with these banners? This way we have a more suitable banner for our projects and, at the same time, we can help in building your lists of required images.
  2. For the subsequent flag and coat of arms pages that each such page will link to, shall we place the {{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology}} banner for this project on those pages (with Needed-class status)?

I am a great believer in collaboration between projects, and I think that this is the best way to go about it. - 52 Pickup 18:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise! In fact, this code is very much a rip-off from WP:MILHIST, so Kirill Lokshin is the one to thank. I just patched it up and added a few goodies. Thanks again to Dr pda for being so kind to fix my blunders :) Back to your post. A1) Seems fine to me, doing so will simply save work for WP:HV, so by all means have it sort into both WP:HV and WP:Prussia categories. A2) I'm not sure how much I love the Needed-class parameter but why not? Only problem I see is that another editor recently told me that empty pages could be speedy deleted, and I honestly don't know if a page with only the talk page active falls into this category. But it is probably just being too cautious. Anyway, setting up a stub article only takes a few minutes, so it is probably an academic issue. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 12:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Glad I could help. For the Former Countries project, the Needed-class is a very important one. Many entries either do not exist or are just redirects to similar-sounding-but-incorrect entries (eg. the Kingdom of Bavaria redirects to the modern German state of Bavaria), so I hope we don't have too much trouble with this class. We'll see how it goes. - 52 Pickup 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some FOTW images *are* allowed

While looking around on the German and Dutch wikis, I discovered that some FOTW images are allowed because the original author has given permission. The FOTW artist Jaume Olle gave this declaration on the German Wikipedia which says that his FOTW images may be used here, so long as credit is given. He is responsible for a great volume of work on the FOTW site and so I will slowly reupload his work here - for example:

If anyone finds such declarations from other FOTW artists, they should also post them here. It makes life a lot easier for all of us - 52 Pickup 18:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I also know that James Dignam (User:Grutness to us) and Juan Manuel Gambino gave us permission to use their images and I intentionally avoid tagging those images, since I spoke to them personally. Heck, some of my FOTW work is on Wikipedia, and i allow that. However, if you do upload images, try and not to use JPEG, but use PNG. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It is really quite simple. I don't think anyone has ever said that FOTW images can't be used, simply that permission depends on the copyright status and author of the particular image. If any image has been released under an appropriate licence, they can be uploaded with the correct licence information. The fact that they are also on FOTW is irrelevant. JPD (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
We still provide a source anyways, but if we get permission, we use the license of the image author's choice. So if Jamue wants X license to be used, then we use X license. I personally use CC-BY-SA for my image creations. However, I still see the images we got permission to use still being tagged for deletion by others, so there still seems to be issues in this department needed to be sorted out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Any image which has the appropriate licence tag and evidence that permission has been given should not be tagged for deletion. If the permission details are on the image page and it is still tagged, the person tagging it for deletion has made a mistake. If it is tagged because the details aren't there, then the problem is the uploader's. If the images were taken from FOTW, then it should be mentioned as the source, but it is really irrelevant to the copyright question. JPD (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
My concerns about FOTW images were raised by the first topic on this discussion page. Thanks for clearing up the matter. - 52 Pickup 16:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of PD material

How about if we tried to compile a list of relevant PD material for this project (not fair use, attribution or "by permission") ? I'm pretty sure many of us must know of a book or two that contains free images or a book we suspect could be PD. To give an example: I'm currently trying to locate a copy of "Dansk Vaabenbog" from 1910 which contains 1,500+ images of coats of arms of Danish noble families. Its author/artist, Harald Storck, died in 1922, so these illustrations are PD. Unfortunately, it was printed in very few copies, most of which belong to libraries where the book is on special restrictions. However, Danske adelsvåbener, printed in 1973 credits all of its illustrations to Storck's book, so I'm currently trying to find a copy of the original work to verify if these illustations are identical. If this turns out to be the case, wouldn't this make the illustrations (but not the text) of the 1973 book free as well? Another example is that I know for a fact that the drawings of Danish heraldist Anders Thiset are PD, since he died in 1917. How about we tried to compile a list of such examples? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 12:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly think those images were free. What might be interesting would be to locate high quality copies of medieval armorials and include those here, even reproduce the entire armorials when possible. I'm particularly thinking of the Armorial de la Toison d'Or which is stunning and could illustrate a number of articles. Unfortunatelly I've never seen more then exerps.--Caranorn 12:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. I'd personally like to see a copy of Wappenboek Gelre and the London Roll (1470?), but I don't know if any reproductions exist. Do you remember where you found these excerpts btw?

This is a bit early, but since I didn't hear massive protests, I'll be a little bold and add the beginning of a list here. It might be an idea to move it to a separate page (which will anyway be a good idea if it shows growth). Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why restrict the list to just PD? I agree with excluding things like 'fair use' and 'no commercial use' but why not list everything that would be eligible for upload to Commons? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Listing only PD material was my first hunch since I have no idea how long Commons continue to accept material that is less than completely free. On the other hand, it such material is clearly marked as (e.g. Attribution) then why not? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PD material

[edit] Germany / Austria-Hungary

  • "Deutsche Wappenrolle" and "Wappenrolle Österreich-Ungarns" by Professor Hugo Gerard Ströhl. (1851-1919).

[edit] Denmark / Southern Sweden ("Skåneland")

  • Works by Anders Thiset (1850 - 1917), e.g. in "Historisk Tidskrift för Skåneland" (1903) and "Nordisk Tidsskrift for Kunstindustri".
  • "Dansk Vaabenbog" by Harald Storck (1839 - 1922)

[edit] United States

Yes. Inge 11:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Their warning probably applies to all US military heraldry. Perhaps it is redundant to mention it here, as many countries have heraldry laws that place restrictions above and beyond copyright law:

PLEASE NOTE: The images of all badges, insignia, decorations and medals on this web site are protected by Title 18, United States Code, Section 704 and the Code of Federal Regulations (32 CFR, Part 507). Permission to use these images for commercial purposes must be obtained from The Institute of Heraldry prior to their use.

[edit] Monograms and seals

Should these two topics be explicitly included in our project? I feel that seals are an integral part of heraldry as it is one of the modes of utilising and displaying coats of arms. The topic of United States heraldry is also a good example of why seals should be/are part of this project. When it comes to monograms I am not as sure. They are frequently used as an identification in stead of a coat of arms, but they break more with heraldic rules. Might a division between royal monograms and private mongrams be in order? I know the use of personal monograms is more frequent in the Norwegian royal familiy than personal coats of arms. Inge 10:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly include seals as they are one of our sources for medieval heraldry. Right now I'm assembling a series of medieval coats of arms largely based on seals (I might add them or a version of them to wikipedia at some point). While modern seals are not always connected to heraldry I guess they'd still fit. As to monograms I really don't know. Here in Luxembourg I'd certainly list the grand-duke's monogram in connection with his coat of arms (it's also used on the military flag), but I have no idea where else that might be applicable.--Caranorn 12:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Not really sure about the monograms (except perhaps royal ones) but "seals" in the U.S. meaning of the term surely belongs here. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The king's monogram is used extensively on military insignia and banners in Norway. Since that seems to be the case in many monarchies I believe it is relevant to us. So should we add ...seals and royal monograms... to our scope on the front page? Inge 12:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 20:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status for the article tagging

Currently, around 1,700 articles relevant articles have already been tagged with the {{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology}} banner. Unfortunately some of this work wasn't done completely systematic (for my own part anyway), so some checking still remains. It is a pretty tedious job, so if anybody has a few hours to spend, any help is most welcome. If anybody knows of a BOT that could check the category tree for articles missing the talk page and /or missing the text string
" {{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology " (except the quotation marks) this would be even better.

On the positive side, all articles from the lists listed on {{nationalflags}} have been tagged already, so most of the remaining work is simply checking for any articles missed the first time. The status listed below is my own "to do" list from the category tree, if anybody has done some of this work already, please update.

[edit] Flags

Much of the category tree has been checked already. The great majority of these articles located in the "missing" categories have already been tagged and the these categories have a great deal of overlap. (category tree removed).

Tagging complete! I've checked Cat:Flags and all its children using AWB and tagged the missing articles. More than 90% of all articles had already been tagged with the project banner, and in my run today, only around 3-5% of the articles were untagged (640 articles checked). Very nice work everybody! Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heraldry

(category tree removed). Tagging complete.

Most of the heraldic material has probably been completed since all of Cat:Coats of arms and all its children has already been processed (except possibly the U.S. state seals, see above.) Several of the other categories have been done as well, but guess who's lost his list of processed categories. :(

Again, if anybody knows of a BOT that could sweep the category tree and create a list of the untagged pages, I'm very interested. Regards. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 11:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Update. I've removed the "completed" from Cat:Coats of arms. I must have been thinking of Cat:Coats of arms by nation (which *is* completed). I just found a bit more untagged material in one of the child categories, so I guess it still needs checking. Drat. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 18:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't have AutoWikiBrowser, but looking at the instructions page it looks like you might be able to do it with that. Make a list from the relevant category or categories, right-click on the list and choose convert to talk pages. Then hopefully you can use the filter to remove pages not having {{WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology .
Failing that, the brute force way would be to copy the lists of articles from all the Flags and Heraldry category pages into one big list, sort, remove duplicates. Do the same for articles in category Cat:WikiProject_Heraldry_and_vexillology (i.e all tagged articles), then compare the two lists and find articles which are on one and not the other. I can think of some unix shell commands which would be useful for this (sort, uniq, diff...) :) Might give this a try if I have time tonight. --Dr pda 19:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I should have done things this way from the start. It is still a bore, but this method is much faster (and safer in terms of catching every article). AWB does part of the trick but it is a lot better to add Kingboyk's plugin (not assessing articles, just tagging them.) Once the plugin has been set up, the method is as follows; Copy the content of a few categories into the list (remember to check for subcategories and add them the same way); use the "filter" option to exclude everything that isn't an article (otherwise it'll tag the image files, which will be a pretty bad thing ...), then check the box that makes AWB remove duplicate entries. Now convert everything to talk pages (I'd been looking for that function. Thanks!) This method does however have a few snags; 1) most important is that the plugin doesn't understand the imagereq. parameters so it complains whenever it sees them. Just click "ignore", since this means that the page is already tagged. 2) I don't have a bot flag, so I have to click "save" or "ignore" to all articles manually ("save" to add the banner, "ignore" to move on if it is already present). 3) Whenever I've added the banner to a previously non-existing talk page, the plugin adds the article to my watchlist which means that I have to removed these additions manually later. Well, all in all it is a good tradeoff and - although tedious - this method is a lot quicker. I've fixed the first flag categories and I'll try to do some more one of the coming days. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
One list down, one to go. I've completed the AWB run of all flag-/vexillology-related articles, including the articles marked with {{flag-stub}}. I've compiled a list of all Cat:Heraldry and its children plus articles marked with {{heraldry-stub}}. I hope to find the time to check the heraldry material around Thursday, and I plan to do it in one run (1,150 articles need checking, the number includes material about seals). If this material is as straightforward as I expect, I can probably be done in three hours' time, so it will simply be a waste of time adding the project banner to more articles by hand. This time would be better spent assessing articles. Btw, I discovered a misformed {{vexillology-stub}} but it was only used on three articles (which I've retagged) so it is way short of the 60 articles normally required for a stub template. I've listed it on WP:WSS/D but I personally can't imagine 60 articles better served by this rather one than {{Flag-stub}}. The image was nice though, so I've used it on {{Flag-stub}}. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Tagging complete! I've checked Cat:Heraldry and its children and Cat:Seals and its children, in both cases using AWB + the plugin. There are a few borderline articles, most importantly relating to individuals and Catholic orders. If anybody feels that an article has been tagged which does not belong here, please simply remove the banner. I have not gone through all of these articles, but the number of such articles should be less than 10. Just like the flags, more than 93-95% of the material was already tagged with the banner. Thumbs up. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 13:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The project so far and the road ahead

This project has now grown to almost 40 members which is great. We are also close to completing the more boring work of tagging and assessing articles so we've made a good start. It is a lot more fun actually writing and improving articles. Most of us have lots of knowledge we can use here. If anybody needs a little inspiration, the list of tasks contains many different things to dive into. Creating images, writing blasons, creating and improving articles on the sciences themselves, coats of arms, flags, people and so forth. Getting this project up to this high level has taken less than two months! Something many other projects could envy us :) So what is the road ahead? After we finish assessing the remaining articles we need to look at ways to keep the interest towards this project up and increase the participation. This is an initiative for a brain storming on what we should do next so I'll just throw out some ideas: How do we motivate other members to participate? Should we give individual members personal tips on topics related to their field of interest? Should we establish task groups? Should we establish a group of people responible for the Portal maintenance? Should we establish an improvement drive?Inge 12:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess a lot will depend on the level of participation. The assessment is/will be a huge help for improving articles - for example articles in the B-Class articles category shouldn't take too much effort to bring to GA status, A-Class articles should be easy to bring to FA status etc. Some sort of Project peer review/A-Class review would be a good idea - both GA and FA have Wikipedia processes for approval, but A-Class doesn't. It would be nice to get the Portal integrated into the project a bit more, e.g. if you write a new article, list a DYK-type fact at the suggestions page (which I just realised I didn't look at when updating the Portal this month), likewise if an H&V article has recently made GA or FA status that add it to the suggestions page for the selected article/biography. If suggestions have been made, then the monthly updating of the portal doesn't take much time; the time comes from having to hunt through all the H&V articles to try and find feature-worthy ones (although this will be helped by the assessment now). Some sort of improvement drive/Collaboration of the (time period) etc could possibly be helpful, though it may be just as useful to set a series of priorities. As I think I've mentioned before, I like the SMART goals set by the Chemistry Wikiproject. --Dr pda 00:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessing lists

Now that all the heraldry and vexillology articles have been tagged, it is apparent that there are a large number of Gallery of flags of X or List of coats of arms of Y, the purpose of which is largely to collect a set of images onto one page for easy comparison. The question arises - how to assess these articles? Do you assess them as stubs because they have little text? but on the other hand once you have listed all the flags of Y what is there to do to improve the article? A discussion on this started a few weeks ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Assessment, but all two of us didn't make any decision. I now think that adding a List class to the assessment is probably the way to go. Comments? Add them here to keep the discussion together. --Dr pda 00:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate articles

While assessing articles I've found a couple which have been duplicated under different names. Both are flag-related, which is not my area of expertise. If the vexillologists among us would have a look at Adolf Hitler's personal standard and French Navy ensigns and pennants I'd be grateful. Dr pda 00:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag article merges

Greetings, all. The articles Personal standard for Adolf Hitler and Führerstandarte have been merged into the article Adolf Hitler's personal standard. I apologize for any confusion that this has created for you. Justin Eiler 00:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem at my end. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First peer review

Good news, the first peer review for a H/V article since the projected started is now at Wikipedia:Peer review/National emblem of Belarus. Though the article is mostly written by me, any help is welcomed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nominations

Just in case anybody hadn't noticed: WP:HV currently has two articles nominated for Good Article status:

Looks like a good start. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 19:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Watching Categories...

I have a technical question. Is it possible to watch categories on the wikipedia and receive notifications in one's watchlist when another article has been added? Would I just "watch" the category in question? Thanks.--dave-- 13:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think adding a category to your watchlist would just watch for changes on the category page itself. The closest thing I can suggest to what you want is to go to a category page, and click the Related changes link in the toolbox (below What links here). This leads to a Special page, e.g. for Category:Heraldry, it is Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Heraldry. It's difficult to tell if an existing article has just been added to the category (unless of course the edit summary says this), but newly created articles show up with an N. Also this only works for pages in the category, it doesn't show changes to any sub-categories; you need to check the Related changes for them separately. (You may be able to create a subpage in your User space which has links to all the categories you are interested in, and then use Related changes on this, but I haven't tried it.) Dr pda 13:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Philip. I'll try that.--dave-- 14:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it worked pretty well for the first try. I found that both John Anstis, younger and John Guillim had been created and added to the Officer of arms category. Great idea.--dave-- 14:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A or An, that is the question

Is there a wikipedia policy on using "a" or "an" before the word heraldic. In general, I would say that I painting is a heraldic masterpiece, but I've seen people write that something is an heraldic gem. Is this a difference between British and American usage, or am I just weird?--dave-- 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

User dave put this question on Talk:Heraldry, but got no answers. Does anyone on the project have an idea? I'm also an American, but generally say "an."--Eva bd 15:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I usually use "a" because from what I was taught, you use "an" if the word after it begins with a voule. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, that's the usual rule, however, some h-words are an exception, even, it appears, where the h is pronounced. The situation is complicated by several factors including historic use as well as differences in current use. For a good discussion, see this link, which actually started from someone's use of "an" with heraldic: [2]. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dexter/S

I've been cleaning up a few entries here and there but I'm seeing a lot of entries where dex/sin seems to be chosen at random.

I don't know if everyone can keep their eyes peeled. Alci12 19:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I assume dexter and sinister. Obviously the Prince Philip article gets these confused and in general seems to be written by someone with little knowledge of heraldry. The fishmongers though appears to be correct (regarding dexter/sinister). All heraldic entries in the Prince Philip article could use a rewrite, but I'm not the one to do it (I'm much more used to blazonning in french, and I usually don't blazon from an image (I do rewrite old blazonning in a more modern fashion/language if needed, correct obvious errors (usually based on text, not images (unless of course those are historic, like a seal for instance)) etc.).--Caranorn 23:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Only that picking a few at random it was approx 50:50 right:wrong so I'm assuming that there must be a good many more and that members here are the most likely to be reading the articles concerned. I was heading out and didn't expect to be online this weekend so was just hoping that many eyes would make a check quicker. Alci12 12:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orders of chivalry

Well now we have about 30 unassessed articles left. Several of them are articles on orders of chivalry. I am not sure they belong in this project. They might if the order gives a special right to bear arms, has a heraldic agency and so forth, but orders in general should be classified as awards and/or exonumia. What do you think?Inge 12:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well done for assessing ~250 articles in only a few hours! The articles you're referring to were tagged with the WP:HV banner because they were in Category:Ecclesiastical heraldry. They are in this category because each of the orders confers some armorial privilege like the right to encircle one's shield with a ribbon of the Order etc. Each article has a sentence or two describing this, however this appears to be their only connection with heraldry. Since there is really nothing more to say heraldically or vexillologically, I would propose untagging the articles. (The British Orders, for example, which also confer similar privileges are not tagged.)
Speaking of whether articles should belong, I have questions about some of the articles in Category:Seals and Category:Heraldic beasts. As I understand it, seals are included because in the US they are used more-or-less in lieu of coats of arms. This is fine, but the category also contains articles on non-armorial/pre-armorial seals (e.g. LMLK seal, Seal of Solomon, Intaglio, Cocket...) which again were tagged because they belonged to the category, but don't really fall into the scope of the project. There's also a bit of a grey area for articles on seals in countries which do have an heraldic tradition, eg the British Great Seal of the Realm, which has only included the sovereign's arms since 2001. Heraldic beasts contains articles on creatures which do appear in heraldry, but the article does not relate to this, eg Dragon, which hardly mentions heraldry at all. I untagged a couple of these a while ago, but they got retagged when we were going through and making sure all the categories were done. If noone objects I'll untag them again soon.--Dr pda 19:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
By all means. I did this by AWB, so I didn't check all articles. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 20:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of arms map

Coat of arms elements

I've worked on this link-labeled COA template; could someone tell me if the labels are correct, or if there's anything else that can be added? Thanks.--Qyd 19:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks nice :) Inge 09:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that it should include only the shield (not field, charge, chief) and a better image would include a traditional crest rather than a crown or coronet. Otherwise, great!--Eva bd 22:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What type of figure would you suggest for the crest? (I don't realy know what's traditional)--Qyd 22:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it matters terribly. Crests have traditional been figures attached to the helm as a further means of identification. A lion rampant would be nice and generic, but is already being used as supporters. Just something aside from a coronet or crown, though it could be issuing from a coronet.--Eva bd 04:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Replaced with a two-headed eagle; scaled down crown to a coronet. --Qyd 21:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Very nice image. Thumbs up. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I still think that you should get rid of the chief link. You already have a link to charge and a chief is a charge. Other than that, great work.--Eva bd 19:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. You're right, it isn't even that common. --Qyd 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. Well done.--Eva bd 22:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Officer of Arms Subcategories?

Is it about time to break this category into subcategories such as "Irish officers of arms," "English officers of arms," and "Scottish officers of arms?" I think so.--Eva bd 22:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on how many we have and how that would split might be too small Alci12 12:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try making an English Officers of Arms category. That will probably the largest of the bunch. When that's populated, we can see what is left over to decide whether the other nationalities need their own categories.--Eva bd 15:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template maintenance

I would like to incorporate the info represented by Template:SelectedHeraldry into the WP:HV template to reduce talk page clutter. It's already partly there, but only for selected articles, not selected biographies. I propose to add a "portalbio" parameter to the template to handle this. Further, I'm unclear why the portal selected article text is only displayed in the WP:HV template when the article is FA; some of the portal selected articles are B class, maybe even start. Any objection to either of these changes? Gimmetrow 04:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Have at it, Gimme. That sounds like a great plan.--Eva bd 15:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead. I think the reason for the current situation is that that part of the template was copied from the MilHist one. Having said that, however, I think it is a good idea to restrict the selected articles if possible to FA class but at least to GA class articles or above. As well as showcasing the best heraldry and vexillology articles, this (may) provide an added incentive to work on getting articles up to this standard. Also now that just about everything is assessed it is much easier to find the FA/A/GA articles. Dr pda 15:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. However, the template checks if the drop-down list will have any content by checking for the existence of portal, etc. options. Technically, the template had a bug before - if a portal option was given but the article was not FA, a drop-down list would be created with an empty line. It seemed overly difficult to make it check for FA/A/GA also, so now all portal and portalbio content is displayed. Gimmetrow 06:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

That feature was copied from the Milhist template, but I left it intentionally so only FA articles would get a "portal" link. This is also what the template description page says. If people think this is an issue, feel free to change away. But please update the description page as well if you do. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 12:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, portal info is displayed for FA/A/GA articles. For the rest, portal info is hidden, though it still causes a drop-down box with an empty line, as at Talk:Colin_Cole_(officer_of_arms). Gimmetrow 01:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

Is it OK with ya'll if I archive this talk page? It is getting a bit on the long side.--Eva bd 15:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] US Military Heraldry

I hope this gets answered before the archive gremlin spirits it away... I'm new here, and I wanted to check to see I wasn't stepping on anyone's toes before I started going crazy incorporating the regimental coats of arms from the US Army Institute of Heraldry and filling out the United States Heraldry section. Hammon27 14:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Good sir...I certainly do not appreciate being called a gremlin ;)
Your help on US heraldry is more than welcome. That's the beauty of wikipedia, I suppose. You can't step on anyone's toes. If you make a change and I don't like it, then I can just talk to you and we can chaneg it back or not. AFAIK, there is no one whose baby is the US Heraldry page. Any help you can give there or with TIOH is more than welcome.--Eva bd 15:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flag etiquette vs. Flag protocol

Hi there, these are two redundant articles which I can not figure out. Does anyone have a preference to which one remains? Please comment at Talk:Flag protocol. Thanks, --Flying Canuck 23:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

(comments moved to Talk:Flag protocol) JPD (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If there is no CoA...

Recently, I discovered on the German wiki Image:Führt kein Wappen.svg which is used in town infoboxes when a CoA image is required but no CoA exists for that town (as opposed to the image simply not being known). I'm currently working on upgrading the infoboxes for German towns on the English wiki and using this image is not really such a good idea. Does anyone know of an English version of such an image? If not, would anyone be game to make one? I was thinking of using Image:Dummy coa.png, but perhaps that does not make it clear enough that the town in question does not have a CoA. What do you think? - 52 Pickup 22:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of using some placeholder image, I'd suggest fixing the infobox template itself so that CoAImage (or whatever it's called) is an optional, not required, field. --ScottMainwaring 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The German solution is not elegant, but it does serve a purpose by informing that the entity (unlike most others of its kind) never held any arms. IRL, it took me a long time to discover that at least one municipality in Denmark has never held any arms (if anybody wonders; it was Søndersø). I'm not sure how this this information can be best conveyed otherwise. By adding a note in comment form within the infobox, perhaps with a little "do not delete me" notice? If anybody has better ideas, I'm all ears. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] URGENT WARNING! License has been removed from dozens of coats of arms images!

The license template {{Coatofarms}} was recently deleted on WP:TFD (Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_3#Template:Coat_of_arms) and it looks like none of us noticed this debate. To make matters perfect, somebody from TFD chose to run though the list of images by bot simply deleting but not replacing the template in question nor informing us. I just noticed the first articles beginning to break down. This will very likely mean that we will have hundreds of coats of arms images deleted or articles using them breaking up very soon. Since {{Symbol}} would cover the same thing in 90% of all cases, it would have been logical to simply apply this but it was not done, for whatever reason. Sorry, this was not the way I hoped to say "happy new year" to this project. If anybody has the time, please start by going through List of English counties' coats of arms but the list of work will be much longer. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 08:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As if this wasn't bad enough! Orphanbot is editing away at tons of pages now. E.g. it is trashing the German material which is PD by law. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
So, that means that within this week or so, we need to find the images that are affected by this and see what we can do. If the arms are German and PD according to law, tag it as so. But, if we get a coat of arms image deleted, and turns out that we can keep it, we can always just talk to the deleter and if that bears no fruit, send it to DRV. I could easily restore the image myself, but until we have proof about the copyright status, I can't do that off of a whim. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It is happening now, not in a week's time. It appears that User:Martinp23 from TFD ran a bot on hundreds of images without informing anybody here. The entire German material is dying now although {{PD-Coa-Germany}} applies. See e.g. the German wikipedia. So is much of the PD material from Nordisk familjebok. I've posted messages to both User:Carnildo and Martinp23 asking the first to calm down Orphanbot and the other to produce a list of the images he has affected. The entire British, Swedish and German material is going down the drain and it won't end there. This project might just as well shut down. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

<!-For what it is worth; this category looks like it contains the images the bot went over more than a week ago. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem indeed, but see Template:Coatofarms -- does this not help? -- Evertype·✆ 10:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No, that's the one somebody decided to remove from 100s of images without warning anybody here. Does anybody have the least idea about how f*cking frustrating it is to try to race with a f*cking computer? It keeps trashing perfectly good images along with everything else. E.g. English images from 1790 and images legal under German law. It then another bot comes long and tags the affected pages with geo data or whatever so you can't even revert many of them. At the moment, trying to race with the bot about who comes to D first and pick up the pieces of Southern Germany's heraldry. ¤#W&%¤&#¤Q !!! Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 11:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Needs to go to Wikipedia:Deletion_review it seems. I will help you with this. -- Evertype·✆ 11:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_January_3#Template:Coat_of_arms -- Evertype·✆ 11:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
"the one somebody decided to remove from 100s of images" - A consensus of editors determined this, and it was far from my decision to remove them. All the proper procedures were followed at the time. Martinp23 12:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there is reason for all involved to calm down

OrphanBot won't delete images - so don't worry about that - it only pluts them in the appropriate category, which is Category:Images with unknown copyright status as of 29 December 2006. It'll be at least 5 days (or a week - can't remember) before the images in that category are deleted, so there's plenty of time to look through the category and fix the coat of arms images - rember that OrphanBot only comments out the images on the pages, so it's easy to resurrect them by just removing the comment markers. Thanks, Martinp23 12:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is pretty outrageous. Your "procedurally correct" actions have caused a lot of hardship to other Wikipedians. Blithely suggesting that they can drop everything for a week to rescue images from what will certainly be autodeletion isn't very helpful. Have you any helpful solutions? -- Evertype·✆ 15:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please assume good faith Evertype, and try to remain civil. My message above was to clarify the procedures, as your DRV, the messages on my talk page and some of the feeling here was that OrphanBot was deleting images. I have merely made the situation more clear. On top of what I've said there, OrphanBot leaves message on user-talk pages of uploaders to encourage them to license the image - I not going to go around tagging someone else's uploads when I have no knowledge of the copyright surrounding coats of arms. It may help to look at the TfD, where one !voter makes a note about the validity of PD claims on some of these images - it wouldn't be wise to go and tag them all PD unless you're absolutely sure. My opinion is that the images which were under coatofarms, but now cannot find an appropriate other license, should be deleted - there should be no problem with removing copyvios from Wikipedia, which, as Caranorn (below) and the TfD note, may include some of these images. I'm trying to help however I can - if images are deleted after the 5 days, and it is found later that they could have been properly licensed, I'll be willing to undelete them. Martinp23 16:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to be told about good faith and civility. I also didn's say that OrphanBot was deleting images. What it's doing is leaving a very large number of images up for eventual deletion by other means. Can you help to find and re-tag the orphanbotted pages? Read the messages below. People are worried that a whole Wikiproject which is all about images is about to be severely damaged. -- Evertype·✆ 19:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why new creations (redrawn coats of arms) were even under that license tag. They should have been released under dual license or something similar. From what I've seen so far deleting that template was probably correct as much of its use seems to have been abusive. Though obviously not checking whether this Project existed and could help in some way was an unfortunate error. Maybe we should work out guidelines what type of information should be included with heraldic images, what I find most astonishing is that most don't even provide a source (in which publication/document the blasonning can be found, or alternatively an older, reliable image...). For the rest, I don't quite see what anyone but the author of those images can do in this case, we can't just go add licenses to someone else's images.--Caranorn 13:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I can only apologise for my ignorance of this project - I'll never forget it after this! The consensus at the TfD was that the template gave the impression it was a valid license (which it wasn't), when it should have been an informational tag. Bear in mind that images without a source can be deleted after 7 days tagged (CSD I4) - hopefully OrphanBot will be picking up cases where no source has been given, so they canbe fixed/deleted. Martinp23 16:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
They probably have for the same reason that I'm arguing on TFD for keeping the {{Insignia}} template; the image as such might be free of copyrights, but the legal question of avoiding unauthorized use by private individuals remains in several juristictions. Anyway, some images are easy:
  • Insignia of a number of national or local governments:

{{PD-Coa-Germany}}, {{PD-Coa-Poland}}, {{PD-Coa-Lithuania}}, {{PD-RU-exempt}}, {{PD-UA-exempt}}, {{PD-BY-exempt}}, {{PD-Coa-Finland}} (we should have had a similar template for Armenia, according to Commons, it is the same case there).

  • Check vector-images.com. E.g the former arms of Yerevan was from that website. In case of matches, tag with {{Vector-images.com}}.
  • Check for images that are clearly PD-old. I believe I got most of them as well as the official German images.
  • Images from Nordisk familjebok. Fred Chess has taken many Swedish images from a c. 100 year old encyclopedia and coloured them. Whenever he does this, he normally writes it on the image description page.
  • In some cases, fair use applies if we have an article about a specific coat of arms.: {{fairusein}}.
I've scraped together c. 200 (mostly German) images but I'll not have the time to examine further images. This experience has completely trashed my schedule. I don't think it will be possible to analyse the vast majority of these images within the timeframe we've been given, so I basically consider the rest lost unless proven wrong. But the big philosophical difference between the (former) "coatofams" template and {{symbol}} / {{logo}} does escape me. All referred to fair use. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 14:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
{{symbol}} seems to completely miss the point about coats of arms and crests (I can't talk about flags as those are beyond my experience). Concerning the blasonning and usage these underly special rules (who may bear them, claim them as their own etc.). Copyright on the other hand is generally held (or waved) by whoever drew the image, it is therefore totally independent from its holder. That is to say concerning wikipedia, one can generally assume that as long as one redraws the coat of arms (preferably from its blazonning), does not pretend the arms themselves are property of wikipedia, the artist or anyone then the actual bearer, uses the image in question for related articles (general armorials, family/community/corporation articles, historic articles...) etc. there is no legal problem. Coats of arms are also not to be compared or confused with logos. In general what a coat of arms placed on wikipedia needs is an adequate license by the artist, nothing more.--Caranorn 15:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
If it wasn't for Scandinavian laws, I'd agree 100% here. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you back this up please? Flag designs (not just their representations) can definitely have copyright. The spcial usage rules for coats of arms are completely separate from copyright, but their existence doesn't necessarily mean that copyright doesn't exist in the blazon itself. Of course, if we are only using it related articles, as you say, there is no legal problem, but it is right to describe it as fair use, as in {{symbol}}. JPD (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

<- Moving to a slightly different topic. The deadline is not "a week from now" as has been said before. See the text on the image description pages: Unless this information is added to this page, the image will be deleted one week after (29 December 2006). Remove this tag when you provide the information.image with unknown copyright as of 2006-12-29 (CSD I4)

This leaves us with a deadline of just two days. We have no choice but to be 100% cynical and concentrate all efforts on the most important images. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Official Latvian symbols are also PD. I'll create {{PD-Coa-Latvia}} Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 18:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Official Estonian insignia are also PD.[3] I'll create {{PD-Coa-Estonia}} Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 19:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a trend over most of Eastern Europe: here are templates for Armenia and the Republic of Georgia: {{PD-Coa-Armenia}} / {{PD-Coa-Georgia}} Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 00:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is a template for Moldova: {{PD-MD-exempt}} (with a redirect from {{PD-Coa-Moldova}}. Romania has similar laws, see commons:Template:PD-RO-Symbol. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 09:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is a template covering Romanian coats of arms: {{PD-RO-exempt}}. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
And this one is for the Czech Republic: {{PD-CzechGov}} Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Brooke-Little

Just a heads up that the article on John Brooke-Little is going to be featured on the main page tomorrow. We should keep a close eye on it to make sure that it is not vandalised or otherwise messed with. --Eva bd 22:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there no infobox for CoA's?

Hello, I am just curious why the articles about coat of arms don't have an infobox while articles about flags do? It would be nice if there was an infobox on every CoA related article.--Crzycheetah 20:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you expecting in the info box that's not in the article or o be taken from the article if it already exists?Alci12 12:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The name at the top, of course, then image, date adopted, design (can include what animal is used if any or what colors are used), the text (the one that Coats of arms of Europe has for some coats of arms), and finally the holder (again, the one that Coats of arms of Europe has).--Crzycheetah 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
For a ood number of articles in this area that is basically the article content in whole. So we would simply get left with an infobox and little article text. Alci12 15:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The infobox for flag articles was started by me, since I am pretty much seeing some of the majory Wiki's using infoboxes on flag articles (mostly from es.wikipedia). Plus, I have seen some of my fellow admins tag articles for having a lack of an infobox. I have no problems if an infobox exists for the arms. I would not mind trying it out, if it doesn't work, then oh well. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that an infobox makes articles look professional, whatever that means. Any article without an infobox is a stub for me.--Crzycheetah 02:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, lets get started. I like the suggestions put up by you, since that is pretty much putting the arms in brief. Though some elements that you ask you, such as holder of the arms, will be hard to find out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Poland color dispute

There's currently a dispute at Flag of Poland about whether or not the color shown on the image is white. The current image takes the "official white" and converts it to RGB, which shows up as grey. I don't think that some of the people understand that the color on a computer image cannot always be taken directly from the ink specifications, as they are completely different methods of displaying colors. --Ibagli (Talk) 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The debate was settled at the Wikimedia Commons, I would suggest of taking the dispute there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of South Africa

Flag of South Africa has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. sJeffpw 22:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Heraldic Authority

Canadian Heraldic Authority has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Lithuania

Just a warning for those that may not know that our Flag of Lithuania is being featured on the main page today. It would be good to watch out for vandals today.--Eva bd 01:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arms of George IV of the United Kingdom

George IV's article is currently subject to Featured article review and a request has been made to provide a citation for: George IV of the United Kingdom#Arms. Can anyone here help out by adding a single reference? Thanks. DrKiernan 11:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've added the two relevant London Gazette entries. I hope I've cited the Gazette correctly; if not, feel free to correct it. talkGiler S 12:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Ireland

Please see Talk:Northern Ireland regarding the use of the Flag of Northern Ireland in the infobox. The question is whether the Ulster Banner should be used, the Union Flag, or no flags at all. Astrotrain 11:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dulcert's map

Map of Angelino Dulcert
Map of Angelino Dulcert

Just a notice that I have managed to download from Gallica and upload to Commons the map of Angelino Dulcert, which is very interesting as a source of some of the oldest flag drawings. The oldest drawing of a flag of Serbia could be found on the map (which I added to the article), and there are other interesting flags - for example what is that thing on the flag of Poland? I can't find anything about it articles on flag or coat of arms of Poland. Nikola 06:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review/Flag of Portugal

I've recently expanded the article Flag of Portugal and put it for peer review. If you would like to address comments and suggestions, please follow the link on the title. Thanks! Parutakupiu talk || contribs 19:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bringing order to Orders

This questions is at least moderately related to heraldry in its broadest sense, so I thought I'd post it here. As members of this project are possibly aware, the family of Orders of St John is confusing. There is a good deal of chaos in their organization on Wikipedia. I thought I'd bring a proposal here (originally proposed by User:Boven who now seems to be inactive). I'd like to see the articles written and organized thusly:

  • Knights Hospitaller(covering the general broad history of the order from its beginnings in the Holy Land to present)
  • Alliance of Orders of St John(a description of the structure and purpose of this group)
  • Order of Malta(the catholic order with extended history from the beginnings to present)
The Four Main Protestant Orders
The Four non-German Commanderies of the Bailiwick of Brandenburg
  • Swiss Commandery of the Order of St John(Switzerland)
  • French Commandery of the Order of St John(France)
  • Hungarian Commandery of the Order of St John(Hungary)
  • Finnish Commandery of the Order of St John(Finland)

I think that an organization this way would be helpful. We could also add a category such as [[Category:St John Orders]] or something like that to group them all together, as well as a possible template showing their relationships. What say ya'll?--Eva bd 19:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • In an effort to keep the discussion in one place, how about we do all the discussing here.--Eva bd 19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone double-check a discription of a Guidon for me?

Hi, I was hoping someone could look over the discription of a regimental guidon I just added to an article HERE, and revise it as needed. Thanks! Mike McGregor (Can) 15:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Quebec

Hi there. A comment has just been placed here with regard to the accuracy of the colors currently used on Image:Flag of Quebec.svg, as the flag is currently on the Main Page, and a discussion to the same effect has been going on here for a while, with little contribution. I would appreciate it if any members of this project more knowledgeable on the matter could weigh in. Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Dr pda for feedback. A new version with corrected colors is now available at Image:Drapeau du Québec.svg. Fvasconcellos 00:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I've put the corrected colours on the main page. Lexicon (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Fvasconcellos 01:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, now I don't know if it's right. Check out this. There's also this, which seems to have all specifications aside from colour. Lexicon (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hrm, the eps file here does seem to have a lighter blue when you open it. Lexicon (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I honestly don't know what to make of that. Fvasconcellos 02:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have recorrected the colours to exactly match those of the EPS file from the government of Quebec. I think that would have to be totally correct. Lexicon (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(dedenting) I hope so :) Confusingly, they look exactly the same on my monitor... Fvasconcellos 02:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I probably hadn't corrected the Wikipedia version yet (I corrected the Commons before remembering that it was uploaded to Wikipedia for protection sake). Try now. Lexicon (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That looks about right now (I downloaded and checked on Inkscape, now there's a difference) Phew. Fvasconcellos 02:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Cantabria

Hi, I just translated Flag of Cantabria from the Spanish wikipedia, as Cantabria is the current Spanish Translation of the week. Maybe you should give it a look, see if you can improve it, or maybe standardize it with other flag articles. Cheers. --Wafry 13:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments requested re WP:FPC/Emblem of the Papacy

Hello, this coat of arms is currently up for featured picture status and we would like to get some expert input on the accuracy of the design. This is not a solicitation to vote in either way in the discussion, although editors are always at liberty to offer their opinions on the artistic merit of the picture as well. Thanks, trialsanderrors 03:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Bumping this down because the nomination is currently suspended for lack of expert input. Please have a look at it. Thanks ! trialsanderrors 05:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broader question about flag articles raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flags of ethnic groups

Dhartung has raised an interesting point about whether this article should be written in the format currently used (a gallery style) or instead should link to individual articles about the flags. That is apparently the preferred approach Wikipedia-wide at this point. This raises broader questions about many other flag articles so I though I would flag this AfD here. --A. B. (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we have too many galleries on Wikipedia for flags. The Wikimedia Commons was built for that purpose, so I think we should try to transwiki the gallery or just make it an article category. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I actually think the opposite: I think we have too many long image galleries, which should be split up. Would not readers find a larger set of smaller galleries, organized around meaningful categories, more useful? And some of the large galleries certainly could use some judicious pruning so that, for example, multiple versions of a single flag are represented only by the best example (together with a "see also" link to where one can find variants). And I agree that flags in a gallery ought to have an associated linked article, so that they don't exist merely as "a flag in a gallery". What I don't understand is the idea I've seen advanced elsewhere that lists of flags are encyclopedic, galleries of flags are not. Printed encylopedias are the other way around. And I for one find articles like List of flags by color pretty uninformative; even for more meaningful categories, like flags depicting animals, would be rendered much less useful and interesting by turning them into text-only lists. (I'll also note that sometimes articles called Lists are de facto galleries; e.g., List of Chinese flags — are these also to be seen as "unencyclopedic" and suitable only for the Commons? --ScottMainwaring 01:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I just voted for deletion as a prerequisite for use of a flag is legal status (not necessarily local) so in general ethnic groups don't have flags.--Caranorn 15:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Some sort of legal status may be considered nessary to bear arms, Caranorn, but flags are another matter altogether. JPD (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
a prerequisite for use of a flag is legal status
Okay, I'd better tell my cousin the South lost. --Dhartung | Talk 16:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
But that flag once had legal status (assuming you mean one of the Confederate Flags, probably the battle flag). Not to mention that variants have probably been used by other organizations. On the other hand it's not a supposed flag of an ethnic group.--Caranorn 11:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand you. A country can have a flag, since it's a legal entity. A province can have a flag, since it's a legal entity. A city can have a flag, since it's a legal entity. A corporation can have a flag, since it's a legal entity. I can have a flag, since I am a legal entity (and you can actually get a legal flag granted in Canada, where I live, along with a granting of arms). My family, however, cannot have a flag, because we are not a legal entity. My ethnic group (a bunch of families) cannot have a flag, because we are not a legal entity. Is that what you are claiming? Lexicon (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much yes. Note that in Canada for example I wouldn't be astonished if the First Nations, or even some of the First Nations, but then these are legally recognized bodies...--Caranorn 20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting opinion, but do you have a attributable source to back up the "if it doesn't refer to a legal entity, it isn't a flag" theory? --ScottMainwaring 05:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually you confuse something, you need a source to include material in a wikipedia article, not the other way round. So how about a source to demonstrate that an ethnic group, regardless of legal status, can have a flag. And yes, I'm not sure to be able to find a source to prove my point which is largely based on common sense and principles from vexillology's predecessor "science" heraldry.--Caranorn 11:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm confused, but I thought that we were discussing the "broader issue" raised by the AfD debate over ethnic flags, namely the idea that "a prerequisite for use of a flag is legal status". At least, I'd like to put to the side the specific questions of ethnic groups' legal status, how one might attribute flags to them, etc., to focus on this broader question. My request for a source was posed in this light, and (somewhat) thinking ahead to improving the Flag article, which doesn't currently do a good job of covering these interesting questions about the intersections of legality and flag usage.
I think its important to distinguish between the legal status of a flag, the entity that the flag represents, and the legal status of that entity. For example, the U.S. Congress could pass a resolution defining a flag that represents human-caused global warming; alternatively such a flag could arise informally from use by grassroots groups and individuals without any legal standing at all. And regardless of the legal standing of the idea that humans are causing global warming, these both would be flags, wouldn't they?
Using such distinctions, it seems to me that flags can and do represent (legally or informally) anything (legally defined or not), and that the minimal criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia ought to consist of demonstrating that notability of a flag in terms of attributable significance, not solely its legal status. The rules of Heraldry may disagree and require stricter criteria for what "counts" as a coat of arms, but as JPD notes above, flags don't necessarily fall under its jurisdiction. --ScottMainwaring 16:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
In this light, what are your comments on e.g. Flag of Aztlán? Should it be named Colored bits of cloth of Aztlán? Do we need to demonstrate that a 501(c)3 has made it an official flag to use the name "flag"? Who defines this definition of flag you're using? The American Heritage Dictionary primary definition is A piece of cloth, usually rectangular, of distinctive color and design, used as a symbol, standard, signal, or emblem. How does that not apply, in your thinking? (Their definition does not use the word country or nation anywhere.) --Dhartung | Talk 12:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe your example is quite clear. The first sentence in that article reads: The flag of Aztlán is an unofficial flag used by Chicano nationalists in the late 1960s and early 1970s. 1) it's unofficial, 2) it's the flag of a political movement. What it is not is also clear, it's not a flag of an ethnic group. Note how I never used the term country or nation either as flags are certainly not limited to such.--Caranorn 15:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Unofficial flags are still flags, and while we should not at all imply that they are official, they are often worth documenting. I don't quite understand the issues surrounding the example given, but often political movements use flags which purport to represent a proposed state or an ethnic group instead of or as well as flags of their movement. Such a flag could be a flag of an ethnic group, even in cases where it would be unfair to call it the flag of that group. More than that, there are definitely cases where a flag intending to represent an ethnic group is extremely widely accepted and used, and it is valid to call it the flag of that group. In some cases, such as the Australian Aboriginal Flag, the flag may even end up with government recognition as the flag of that group, even though the group is not a legal entity. JPD (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armigers

Have we a category for armigers? A colleague of mine who has a Wikipedia article was recently granted arms. -- Evertype·✆ 17:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We now have a Category:Armigers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Armigers The way I would propose to use this is to add it to articles which show the arms or specify the blazon. -- Evertype·✆ 10:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of arms of Spain

I recently completed an expansion of Coat of arms of Spain, which might need an assessment rating. Thanks. --Maurice27 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reassessed it and added a few comments. Welcome to WP:HV. Valentinian T / C 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Valentinian. I will make the changes ASAP. --Maurice27 08:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Spain

I recently completed an expansion of Flag of Spain, which might need an assessment rating. Thanks. --Maurice27 08:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of arms of Amsterdam

Could someone with specialist knowledge of heraldry check the new article Coat of arms of Amsterdam on the correct use of heraldic terms? – Ilse@ 01:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Heraldry_and_vexillology_9410.html"