User talk:Spanish Inquisition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] WikiProject Luxembourg

I'm sorry for not having welcomed you immediately. Where are my manners? Regardless, thank you for joing WikiProject Luxembourg. I'm sure that we both have high aspirations for this small patch of Wikipedia. Your good work on the German Wikipedia has not escaped my attention, and am pleased to see that the WikiProject will benefit from the aid lent by someone whose knowledge is so deep and whose contributions are of such a standard. Bastin 18:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course nobody welcomed you. Nobody expected you. You knew someone had to say it. Fan-1967 19:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] exile government...

I just realized there's nothing about the exile government in the German occupation of Luxembourg in WWII article. Do you have the necessary material to write a short section? As I already said I probably don't (Koch-Kent's books are so rare my brother allways lent them to people, at some point they got lost and Koch-Kent himself only had two or three of them left to gift to my brother..., so the relevant books are gone) and my own WWII collection mostly concerns military history. Anyhow if you have the material and wish me to help just let me know.--Caranorn 11:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.--Caranorn 20:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

copied from User_talk:Caranorn

So far I looked into my sources and they a are devided between two extremes: The chapter in the book from the exhibition about WWII written by Steve Kayser is very, let's say, down to official facts and putting the exile government more into an international perspective. No criticism here, Bech was a really nice chap. Then I have the november 2005 edition of Forum with especially the article by Roemen which can still be downloaded from forum's website. It's about the "putsch" of 1946 and the heavy cristicism and accusations from the resistance towards Joseph Bech. Picture turns from white to black really. The author also mentions the work of Koch-Kent and how he was silenced. The book by Krier and Haag only treats the first year in exile so it's very detailed and maybe too detailed for this project. Something that puzzles me is what the authors syed in their introduction about Koch-Kent. They claim "it was all something very personal revenge by someone who was a bit disappointed by the exile government" (I ommitted the sarcasm buttoms here!). I knew Kayser, Haag and Krier personnally when I was a student at the Athénée de Luxembourg. I was quite surprised by the positions of Kayser and Krier, not so much by Haag. So, how shall we treat this subject? It might depend on how much space we want to give for it, maybe it will turn into an article on it's own. But I definitly think we should treat both sides of the medal including the accousations by Koch-Kent and the resistance. cheers Spanish Inquisition 14:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Sorry I had not noticed your reply before. I will try to come back to it tommorrow.--Caranorn 21:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Well this was indeed a personal issue for Koch-Kent as he was what one would call a player in these matters. If I recall correctly he was militating against Bech (student activist) before the war, yet in 1940 he was probably instrumental in getting the government to evacuate. Unfortunatelly it's been over ten years since I read his books, what's certain is that he was not entirely neutral. On the other hand he did some great research and had a lot of first hand information. I will have to check out the Forum article (usually they are quite good, and Roemen while also politically motivated is a decent journalist). The Krier-Haag book I don't know (but I usually trust Haag, I had him for a Russian-Revolution class (at Miami University's European campus) and found him to be neutral, though I also recall him from the single year I spent at the Athenée and of course I knew three of his children...). Generally I'm not of the opinion that a non-neutral author should be ignored in history, one should always be cautious and consider the author's viewpoint (I recently read some histories about Napoleon's Russian campaign, two of the authors contemporaries of Napoleon serving on opposing sides, reading just one would have given a very skewed view, reading both and two other histories and I got not only straight facts but also was able to discern errors and bias that would not have been visible with just the later neutral sources). And yes, that means it might indeed be a good idea to base the paragraph (or article) about the exile government on one recent author and flesh that out from Koch-Kent. Let the reader see that there were differences. I definitelly don't believe a history of the exile government could ever be complete without Koch-Kent.--Caranorn 12:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pics

Just saw your message elsweare that you made some pictures. I was just reaing the publication on the excavation of 1992 on the Bocka nd Méchelskierch and I'd like to write something about it. Fort that I would need a pic of the Méchelskierch where I could draw the different stages of construction into. For that a plane, non-artistic view from the Fëschmaart would be very helpfull and welcome. Amen Spanish Inquisition 22:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I took two (decent) pictures of Méchelskierch but don't think they are what you are looking for. Here are the thumbnails.

Saint Michael's church

Saint Michael statue
--Caranorn 13:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] coats of arms of communes/municipalities (copied from my talk page)

Concerning pics: The coats of arms from any municipality in Luxembourg can be used as long as they are not used for commercial purposes, fraude or whatever anything nasty, see the text on www.legilux.lu [1].That seems to be no problem for lux. and german Wiki [2]. So as far as I understood this hole discussion, we can ues the things represented on the coat of arms but the question is weather we can use the data file that is available online. For that purpose I can propose myself for helping to make such files if required.Spanish Inquisition 14:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the information (blasoning) can be used as long as there is no misrepresentation (I, we, wikipedia, whoever else pretend it is theirs...). But the images I believe are covered by standard droits d'auteurs, that is we cannot just copy a drawn coat of arms without the authorisation of it's author. Just for example this is the copyright notice of the Armorial Communal du grand-Duché de Luxembourg:
(c) J.A. Fisch, Luxembourg 1989
Tous droites de reproduction, même fragmentaire, sous quelque forme que ce soit, y compris photographies, photocopies, microfilms, bandes magnétiques, disques ou autres, réservés pur tous pays.
So if I'm correct in my interpretation that the images currently on the commons and used on the Luxembourgish page were indeed scanned from this book, then continued use on wikipedia would be violating that copyright... Whether anyone would ever bother to proscute over this matter is of course doubtful, still I don't like to take the risk. On my user page you can see the coats of arms I've drawn the past week (just a few for Luxembourg because I'm not sure we shouldn't use the others anyhow and don't want to waste time redrawing the lot under those circumstances). Oh and I've had to correct at least one Belgian coat of Arms that was both mis-blasonned and mis-drawn (luckily I found another source to confirm that). So just copying is not a good idea either.--Caranorn 15:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

copied from User_talk:Caranorn

First, please comment on my message I posted upstears about exile government. It's a bit more important to me top me than this whole image thing ;-)
This is contradictive in itself. On one hand Mr Fisch claims that he owns the copyright on the image (=graphical interpreation of the heraldic description) of the coat of arms. So what do the authorities do when they use their coat? Pay credits to Mr Fisch? For a picture that existed already long before he was born? What you are confusing here is copyright and patent. Fischer has the copyright, not the patent. He did not invent the coat of arms of let's say Walferdange as being a red fox holding an arrow etc (unlike e.g. the corporate designer for a computer game invents coats of arms for different races). And now compare both images here: from the dutch heraldic site who uses Fisch's images and fron the official website of the municipality They are very different in the details. And what Fisch holds a copyright of is his own design. Not for all possible graphical representations of the heraldic information. That would be a patent. So as long as you draw your coats in a different design than the images copyrighted, you are safe. If they get too close or equal to Fisch's interpretation then you can get trouble. But comparing your design of the lion with the one by Fischer they are completely different. So just go ahead. Cheers Spanish Inquisition 20:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
We actually agree on this, so there must have been some confusion. The problem I see is that the whole set of coats of arms already exists on Wikimedia commons (and is used on some wikipedia sites, including the Luxembourgish one). I had already started drawing my own versions when I noticed this. At that point I decided to stop what I was doing (or rather devote all my time to the Belgian coats of arms) until I knew what would happen to those old images which I fear are in copyright violation (if they are not there is no need for me to redraw them). I think right now I will try to complete the Belgian coats of arms (unfortunatelly the bnl does not have the most recent armorials...).--Caranorn 21:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Yes go ahead and overwrite the two Luxembourgish municipal coats of arms I uploaded (Remich and Vianden). I also prefer to have all coats of arms in a series to use the same style.--Caranorn 19:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Great work on these coats of arms. I'll start implementing them by introducing the new infoboxes. Bastin 22:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your coats of arms

Here are some changes I'd suggest for your current set of coats of arms. Some of them are minor, others are rather important.

Some corrections needed for your series of coats of arms.

  • 1) Bastendorf, the tower probably shouldn't be maconated (brickwork) as that's not part of the blazon. (Mi.)
  • 2) Beaufort, the tower has 5 crenelations, not just the 3 given so far.
  • 3) Beckerich, the lion's tongue and claws should be silver/white.
  • 4) Berdorf, the cross ends in the shape of a fleur de lys.
  • 5)Bettborn, this should be ondé not crenellé, that is to say the red line is wavy...
  • 6) Bettembourg (the file is mispelled), I think the tower gates should be gold/yellow (they are not blazonned as open), also no mazonry.
  • 7) Bettendorf, that should be a fasce vivrée, so essentially a zigzagged line not an M sape.
  • 8) Biwer, the staves should have some silver/white decoration (garnies d'argent).
  • 9) Boulaide, the silver/white line should be wavy (ondée).
  • 10) Bourscheid, probably no mazonry and a red gate.
  • 11) Clemency, the fish probably have to be a specific shape (barbeaux), the gate again should probably not be maconated (oddly enough the image in the armorial shows an open gate, the blazon does not mention it, so in that part your image is better, though possibly town-gates are always shown open).
  • 12) Clervaux, the birds need red claws and beaks.
  • 13) Consthum, the cross is recerclée not just ancrée (the points have to go further back).
  • 14) Dalheim, the fish are bar so might need a specific image, the stave is decorated gold/yellow.
  • 15) Differdange, the lion has no distinct claws and tongue (so gold/yellow)

Note, I'm not 100% certain on the isues of mazonry, open/closed gates and the specific fish types. Lastly, the lot looks great, so I'm in no way criticizing the graphic part which is well done.--Caranorn 19:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


  • 14) What I meant to say is that the dalheim coat of arms is blazonned as à deux bars adossés d'argent. The bar is a specific fish, in Manuel du Blason it is described as Parmi les poissons, le bar et le dauphin (considéré comme poisson en héraldique) ont une forme particulière. les bars sont en général posés deux à la fois en pal, légèrement ployés, dos à dos; on les blasonne alors adossés.... This means that like the dolphin they should be slightly curved (similar to the barbeaux of Cémency...). To be honest, I'm not used to fish in armorials, though I will have to deal with them eventually when I look into coats of arms related to historic Luxembourg (Bar, Salm and I believe one of two other houses related to Siegfried). So maybe this is not all that important.
  • Two new ones.
  • 16) Grand Duchy, yellow tongue.
  • 17) Luxembourg city, according to the Armorial red claws.

--Caranorn 18:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • 18) Ettelbruck, caduceus, so yes, and the bundles are indeed cereal (blé) and should be bound red, the river should be blue unless they applied for a new coat of arms.
  • 19)Kopstal, acording to the memorial it's une branche d'osier, it should be represented with 4 leaves and 4 fruit, all gold/yellow.
  • 20) Mertzig, it's a roman eagle, so like the one in the Dalheim coat of arms (I'm not certain that the head should point to the right, usually heads point to the left, but as these are both specifically labelled roman eagles it might be a convention I'm not aware of, though some quick web searches showed all cases of aigle romaine with the head pointing to the right).
  • 21) Niederanven, it's tilleul feuillé, fruité et arraché d'or.
  • 22) Schieren, un arbre arraché de sinople, so just any tree showing the roots (not planted in ground).
  • 23) Grapes and vine, yes as long as it's recognisable and the tiges on top are visible.
And don't worry, heraldry has nothing to do with botany, or biology for that matter as it's roots precede modern science by far. And most details I just have to look up myself (though having the blazon (textual description) of a coat of arms handy makes this much easier. Back to the term on pal, that does indeed just describe the fish's place (and to a certain degree orientation) within the shield, but I was referring to ployé as in bent. That is the bar needs to be at least somewhat curved. And yes, generic fish seem to be always straight.--Caranorn 12:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


Here are some more notes.
  • 5) Bettborn, the fasce ondée (wide) should probably be thicker to distinguish from the devise ondée (narrow) of Boulaide, you could use the shape and size used for Contern (but a single colour).
  • 24)Boevange-sur-Attert, wrong name, this cross should end trefoile (tréflée) shape not fleur the lys shape (as in Junglinster).
  • 25)Esch-sur-Sure, the boar should have a visible, red tongue, you missed the first white/silver bar (burele) in the lower left (3rd) quartering, there should be 5 white/silver and 5 red stripes.
  • 26)Goesdorf, the fruit should be of the same colour as the tree (green).
  • 27) Grosbous, the blazonning specifies cinquefeuille d'oeillet, but not sure whetehr the distinction is needed.
  • 28) Hosingen, the staff should have a natural (brown) colour.
  • 29)Lac de la haute Sûre, the fish is specified as a brochet, so if possible a specific image.
By the way your user page has coats of arms mispelled.--Caranorn 13:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Divisions of the shield are not always very scientific, essentially there is some artistic license that should be used whenever appropriate. That is to say a fasce need not always be exactly the same size, but it should be wider then a devise... And that's the problem here, Bettborn has a fasce, Boulaide a devise. Now Contern is a special case as it has a fasce charged with three trangles (similar to a burelle), logically this fasce can't just cover the rough third of the shield it usually should (or else the 7 lines it consists of would become too thin to see in many cases, particularly distinguish the number). Right now I'm running two paralel sets of coats of arms (I created an improved shield recently and better divisions of the shield, but I did not wish to upload two distint sets to Wikipedia, so I have stuck to the old one), the more recent usually uses 25% of the height for a fasce (it should be 33% but that usually looks awfull). For the devise I've chosen roughly 16.67% (1/6th), the jumelle the next smallest 11.09% (1/9th), the tierce 6.64% (1/15th), but when I have to place multiple of these they get smaller again, two devises 1/10th, two jumelles 1/15th, two tierces 1/25th... The smallest I considered is 1/35th (three tierces). And I haven't had to use any of those small units yet, I'd probably resize them as needed as long as it's not beyond the mark for the next category... Anyhow, in this case the problem is that the fasce ondée of Bettborn looks the same as the devise ondée of Boulaide.
  • 30) Kautenbach, just plain fish
  • 31) Niederanven, it's a cinquefoil, not a rose, the helmet is a roman one, and yes, staff and tree are golden/yellow
  • 32) Rambrouch, une perle en poire d'argent, sertie et annelée d'or, so a pear shaped pearl with golden fittings...
  • 33) Rumelange, a miner carrying a mining pick and lamp all in natural colours
  • 34) Sandweiler, actually there is one precision, it's 4 engined (and jet);-)
  • 35) Troisvierges, yes you got it right, I guess they should have a chaste look:-), , and yes, it's a locomotive wheel on a rail
  • 36) Tuntange, yes, those are dungeons (and are higher then the towers) and the pointed roof is in the blazonning

Wahl, yes

  • 37) Walferdange, no specifications on the city gate, just that it's open (number of crenelations is only specific when the blazonning notes it, otherwise it's up to the artist)
  • 38) Weiler, the tower is similar to the dungeons in Tuntange, but this time the pointed roof is coloured blue
  • 38) Weiswampach, yes, red tongue and claws
By the way I'd totally missed the Luxembourg city coat of arms, and yes it has 6 silver/white and 5 blue stripes (d'argent à cinq burelles d'azur).--Caranorn 13:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 39) Mondercange, rose à six feuilles de gueules, so a six leaved rose would be preferable
  • 40) Putscheid, this and several other coats still needs a correction for the small crosses, the lower end has to be pointed
  • 41) Sanem, not flowers at all, four golden roues dentées
  • 42) Schieren, un arbre arraché de sinople, so any kind of tree with visible roots

--Caranorn 20:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Luxembourgish blasons

I'm not sure what you mean by that article. I really didn't have anything specific planned yet, just to eventually write some more medieval history and for that to include the major local dynasties and their coats of arms. I'm also working on some of this material for other purpouses (possible game use, and an illustrated armorial for fun and possible later publication...). Some of the simpler things I was considering was simple histories, genealogies and armorials for the counts of Luxembourg (with all branches including those of the old Ardennes house), counts of Vianden (including other Sponheim houses) etc. But no precise plans, just the intent to read up and research the topic (and obviously not stopping at modern borders). If you have specific plans I can try and help. I also still have Loutsch's main armorial on loan from the BNL (plus three other books) so I should be able to help with blazonning (I can also get access to a number of online versions of historic armorials, but some of that could be considered original research). Let me know how I can help.--Caranorn 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] coats of arms of the counts and dukes...

Hello again,

I just saw your recent uploads. Did you largely base them on pre-existing images? Because I fear some errors have snuck up and I didn't have the courage to start correcting them yet. For instance, unless I'm totally mistaken, Loutsch lists a single case of the double tail in saltire for the counts and dukes. Essentially the medieval coat of arms except for that single instance was always single tailed. The exception was Henry VI who had some claims on the duchy of Limburg (though he supported the count of Gelre's claim against Brabant) and therefore adopted the double tail in saltire. After Henry VI'th death at Wörringen all coats of arms once again seem to be single tailed. Though the Ligny-Luxembourg dynasty adopted the full Limburg arms around 1314 (at least that's the date I have in my files). For now my own files end around 1400 (Wenceslas I's bastard sons), so I can't tell when exactly the double tail in saltire was adopted, but I believe it was after the extinction of the Limburg-Luxembourg dynasty.--Caranorn 13:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to look this up. The problem is that I've moved on a bit in my current research (from the counts of Luxembourg to various Low-Countries territories (and oddly Scotland which seems to be the origin of the coat of arms of the county of Holland)). In my own files I have only one example of a double tail (in saltire) on a Luxembourgish coat of arms, that's Henri VI between 1281 and his death in 1288. The last file I have for Luxembourg is Josse (1399-1411). So I am 100% that there is no double tail (except again Henry VI) up to that point. Right now I have some 60, mostly individual (people) coats of arms that I could upload to the commons, but are probably not needed. If you wish, send me an email (I think my en.wikipedia is correctly configured) and I'll send you the lot (my small, 400x360 pixel variants, not my work or print files) so you can directly compare them. I mostly stopped research past 1399 because at that point coats of arms tend to start to be composed of more then 8 individual arms (mi-parti équartelé (Wenceslas I (1355-1383))), which is about the maximum I can decently represent on the computer.--Caranorn 13:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] three coats of arms of counts of Vianden

Do you think you could assemble two additional coats of arms in your style for the Counts of Vianden? The missing ones are the original one (gules an escutcheon argent) and the Namur one (or a lion rampant sable, a bendlet gules (some add a crown or to the lion but that seems uncertain). As these are for a single article (still only a stub-translation from dutch, but I'll try to find more material) they should be similar in looks. Alternatively I could just create three fresh coats of arms (I have all three on files, but can't release those images as they are intended for a book), but that would mean yet another duplicate of the Vianden/Bouillon/Austria/etc. arms.--Caranorn 13:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] coat of arms of the counts and dukes

Hello,

I just noticed that there are some problems with the coat of arms attributed to the counts and dukes.

The first one (ca.1240 - ca. 1281) should have a single tail.

The current image should be renamed and used for Henri VI between ca. 1281 and 1288 during the Limbourg succession war. After that date the coat of arms used should once again be the single tail variant. I'm not sure when the next change occurred, but I have Wenceslas I down as using a single tailed lion up to 1383 at least. Josse I (who did not rule here) until 1411. Though those could be based on a false assumption and I'd have to check Loutsch's Armorial once again.--Caranorn 13:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your images, someone just deleted all your license tags

Hi, just wanted to let you know someone just deleted the license tags for your coat of arms images. I notice you haven't been active for some time but I thought you should know.--Caranorn 13:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luxembourgish Coat of Arms

Yep, one of the images was tagged as unlicensed for a short time. But then Polarlys himself I believe went and reverted his earlier removal of a license... So I'd expect they won't go and remove the licenses again. The only reason the other images weren't tagged was probably that they have that bogus Luxembourg Coat of Arms template. Maybe if you have some time you could read through the law linked in that template. I think we should probably remove most instances where the tag is used, with the notable exception of the National Arms and probably Grand-Ducal arms which are indeed covered by this law. But I'm only working out of memory now, at the time I noticed I didn't want to remove the templates as that would have left all your images without any visible license...--Caranorn 11:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just your license should be sufficient, the tag citing that law would only seem useful for the National Arms. I believe those tags were introduced via the French Projet Blason at one point where a large number of coats of arms had been tagged for deletion. So it was sort of a rescue mission which in retrospect seems to have introduced an error (I didn't check at the time, so certainly part of my fault). And yes, the Commission Héraldique de l'Etat would be a good address to ask these kinds of questions, I've been considering contacting them for some time now (mostly over the Flag issue) but haven't done so yet. If Loutsch was still alive I'd certainly have gotten in touch with them, right now the only one I vaguely know is Trausch (and of course Klein from his recent appearances on TV and in teh papers).--Caranorn 11:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)