Talk:Line (heraldry)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heraldry and Vexillology Portal

Line (heraldry) is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).

Does anyone know how to deal with quadrate? --Daniel C. Boyer 16:24, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Who can provide information on the "saxonized" line of partition? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:29, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Can anyone provide information on the form of "embattled" on the shield of Arzl im Pitzal in Austria? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:06, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Can anyone blazon the charges on the dexter side of the shield of Aurolzmunster in Austria? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:10, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Can anyone explain about a fess lozengy &c.? In this article might not be the best place to do it but it should be done somewhere. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:27, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can anyone explain about the far-out and probably just incorrect shield of Trelawney Dampney here? My theory now is this is not fit for discussion on the line page but perhaps I am wrong. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:28, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] remove or improve

Removed a mess of external links:

  • The Japanese copy of Parker's glossary is gone, as is a Geocities page about heraldic innovations.
  • Searches at the National Archives of South Africa (www.national.archsrch.gov.za) apparently return temporary links, which promptly become invalid.
  • In some cases the contributor apparently took the address of a page's outer frame rather than the specific address of the content. I improved such links where I could, but I'm not about to search the roster of the Royal Heraldry Society of Canada to see which member has an orle embattled!

—Tamfang 17:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is vandalism plain and simple. I cited correctly, and I don't think we should make Wikipedia worse and worse as links become 404 by removing the information that was sourced by those links. As for your unwillingness to do research, if you're not interested, leave the page alone. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Removing invalid links is not removing information. Intentionally adding links that are known to be bad is no better than adding DCB RULES LOL!. How is it useful to anyone to know that a copy of Parker once existed at a given website? I'm guessing the SA search links make you feel good because they document that someone once looked something up, but if they cannot help anyone find what was looked up, what use are they? How can the reader distinguish them from fraud?
By the way, in your zeal to preserve every useless footnote, you have removed information that I added:
Which ought to give some indication of the depth of my unwillingness to do research. If I knew even the first letter of the name of the bearer of an orle embattled, I'd have gone looking for that too (rather than merely removing the link), to save the reader some pointless hunting.
You've also restored some redundancies:
  • "The arms of The arms of the Free State",
  • "The bordure ... Val d'Oise ... have a bordure with"
  • a duplicate definition of "wavy crested"
I won't make these changes again, since they might be considered vandalism. —Tamfang 17:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll wait a week for DCB to respond and then decide what to do. —Tamfang 06:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No links is better than bad links Alci12 16:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South African search links

The link for gably of three gives: "Search Manager sign-on error."

If there is a way to extract a PERMANENT link from such searches, please do so. If the result comes up in a frame, right-click on the frame, choose "show only this frame", and get the frame's address. —Tamfang 15:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)