User talk:Lobsterthermidor

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Lobsterthermidor!

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

Here's how:

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

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

[[Category:Category name]]

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

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

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

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

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

CategorizationBot (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RobertThrockmortonD1581.png was uncategorized on 7 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image:NicholasThrockmortonD1571.png was uncategorized on 7 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image:RobertThrockmorton1stBt.png was uncategorized on 8 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image:TabletRobertFitzHardingStAugustinesBristol.jpg was uncategorized on 14 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image:EmmaNorthBradleyWilts.jpg was uncategorized on 17 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image:JohnTalbotEarlOfShrewsbury.jpg was uncategorized on 17 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image:SirFrancisThrockmorton2ndBtLely.png was uncategorized on 21 January 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image:WalwynArmsMitcheldeanChurch.jpg was uncategorized on 2 February 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image:WyndhamChapelStDecumansChurchWatchet.jpg was uncategorized on 15 February 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image:WyndhamBrothersMonumentWatchet.jpg was uncategorized on 15 February 2012 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:NorthMoltonFromSE.jpg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 00:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct licence now added, omitted by oversight. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

File:DeRaleighArmsOwnWork.JPG[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Licence now added. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Lord Rolle[edit]

Hi there, I've created a Category:John Rolle, 1st Baron Rolle. Should you have more images of this gentleman, please sort them into this category too. See also Category:Rolle family. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Useful addition, noted. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Retirement[edit]

This user is, of their own volition, no longer active on Wikimedia Commons.
This is not indicative of breaking any Wikimedia policies.

Lobsterthermidor has moved on. Over and out. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Lobsterthermidor returned[edit]

Hi! Lobsterthermidor has returned to tie up a few loose ends. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Copyright status: File:HughRadcliffOfStepney KillertonHouse.jpg[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:HughRadcliffOfStepney KillertonHouse.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any problem, please be more specific, thanks, (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Someone fixed it already. Thanks for checking. --Jarekt (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:SirJohnArundell OfLanherneBrass1545 StColumbMajor.png[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:SirJohnArundell OfLanherneBrass1545 StColumbMajor.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my oversight, now fixed. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Nutwell[edit]

There is only one Nutwell on the east bank of the Exe Estuary - namely Nutwell Court in Woodbury CP. I don't quite get why you tried to separate this one concept in two and certainly see no need for BLOCK CAPITALS to say its ambiguous when it isn't! I've redirected Nutwell, Lympstone to Nutwell, Woodbury as that reflects the reality of the matter.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that the two houses are totally different. I know a fair bit about Nutwell Court, Woodbury, rebuilt in 1799 from a mediaeval house, which is NOT the smaller, white, crenellated building in the images remaining in Category:Nutwell, Lympstone, which I know nothing about, except that it is not "Nutwell Court". Apologies for my capitals. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Ah I see the issue. Nutwell is an estate, not just the country house at its centre (which is Nutwell Court). There is only the one Nutwell estate - in Woodbury parish between the village of Lympstone and the Marine base. Nutwell, Lympsone, does not exist. The smaller building is The Belvedere, which is within the Nutwell estate. See these records for Nutwell Court, Belvedere and Nutwell Park.

Nutwell, Woodbury, is the overarching name for the entire estate and all buildings within it, if you want to make a distinction between the house and its estate, then Category:Nutwell, Woodbury and Category:Nutwell Court, Woodbury are needed.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion has arisen due to the uploader of the photos of the Belvedere naming his/her photos incorrectly as "Nutwell Court". Quite possibly the Belvedere and/or the pub (former "Nutwell Lodge"??) is situated in Lympstone parish, I don't know. It's a large estate and may straddle parish boundaries. The Court is definitely in Woodbury parish, but a long way from the church on the extremity. I think I'll create 3 new sub-cats, more or less as you suggest, all under "Nutwell, Woodbury": "Nutwell Court", "Nutwell Belvedere" & "Nutwell Lodge". I'll check that last name. OK? (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

That makes sense, but its worth mentioning the modern estate is wholly within Woodbury, as can be verified on OS maps. Its possible that we will have photos of the estate - its ponds and parkland - after all. As for the bad file names, I will correct them this evening.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Job done, thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Copyright status: File:GarterPlateJohnRussell1stEarlOfBedford1539.png[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:GarterPlateJohnRussell1stEarlOfBedford1539.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Licence tag now added. Thanks. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Copyright status: File:LoveringImpalingDodderidge Hudscott Chittlehampton.JPG[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:LoveringImpalingDodderidge Hudscott Chittlehampton.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed, thanks (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

File:NewnhamArms.PNG[edit]

File:NewnhamArms.PNG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Hchc2009 (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:SirWilliamStrode 1637MuralMonument StMary'sChurch Plympton.JPG[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:SirWilliamStrode 1637MuralMonument StMary'sChurch Plympton.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the oversight, licence now added to file (own work) & "no licence" tag removed.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Country houses[edit]

Hi 3 separate messages, hence 3 separate threads: when creating cat for a country house, please place it at its full name as this avoids any potential ambiguity. eg Category:Mothecombe is a small hamlet, best known for its beach, and is not just the house. Furthermore, the houses are generally best known by the full name.

If you look at well known properties, like Category:Blenheim Palace or Category:Chatsworth House, the main category for the estate is the house's cat, and things in the broader estate like the gardens are a subcat. I'd suggest this is best approach in general, so the structure for Mothecombe House would be: Holbeton (parish) -> Mothecombe (hamlet) -> Mothecombe House (estate) -> Mothecombe House gardens.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Plympton[edit]

Plympton St Mary was a large rural CP, and has long been abolished, which covered the land that is now modern Plympton (less St Maurice), plus a large chunk of land now in Sparkwell. The southern area of the parish is now a densely populated urban landscape, and that is best described in modern terms like Woodford, Colebrook and Chaddlewood. To add to the confusion the current ward of Plympton St Mary is much smaller than the former parish, for instance St Mary's church is not in Plympton St Mary ward.

The category scheme reflects the current situation, so I've moved Newnham to Sparkwell. As for Plympton St Mary - I've redirected it to Plympton. Its not a helpful subdivision in the modern urban area, especially with confusion between the former parish and modern ward.

In contrast, Plympton St Maurice is the ancient town, and it still has a distinct identity within the urban area - so Category:Plympton St Maurice is worthwhile.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

File:SiteOfRaleighHousePiltonDevon.PNG[edit]

This file is incorrectly licensed. As it is a derivative of a cc-by-sa-2.0 licensed work, your work must be licensed under a cc-by-sa license too and you cannot release to public domain. I cannot change the license on the file for you.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, licence amended accordingly, thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Copyright status: File:PercyImpalingSpencer OfSpencerCombe Crediton Devon PetworthHouse.PNG[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:PercyImpalingSpencer OfSpencerCombe Crediton Devon PetworthHouse.PNG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Licence now added, thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

File:AffetonCastle RobertCutts.jpg[edit]

File:AffetonCastle RobertCutts.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Josve05a (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... in heraldry[edit]

Hello - if a category is named "... in heraldry" it means that only coats of arms may be grouped therein. SVG coat of elements shall not be assigned to it as they don't show a shield. Therefore I reverted your categorisations of the merlettes. -- Maxxl² - talk 16:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're correct here, I can't see why an heraldic charge can not be included in "... in heraldry" cats when shown on its own not on a shield. It is "used in heraldry" is it not? Are you following some Wikicommons guideline perhaps? The category is not called "... coats of arms ...", in which case I would agree with you.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

FYI just read the warning at the parent category and pls stop messing up a longtime proven structure. -- Maxxl² - talk 12:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use incivil language. The category was/is in a real mess because it mixes up two totally different heraldic figures: the English martlet and the French merlette. I am trying to disentangle the two varieties, which will not be a simple task. You have misinterpreted the "warning" above, which reads: "WARNING: In this context, when a category says "Category:Xyz in heraldry", it means ...in shield, not ...in crest or something external ornaments". This therefore allows for heraldic elements which usually appear in shields (as opposed to on crests or in supporters or elsewhere) to be shown alone. It does not mean "shields only can appear in this category".(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

File:MohunsOttery Gatehouse Luppitt Devon.jpg[edit]

File:MohunsOttery Gatehouse Luppitt Devon.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Nilfanion (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:MohunsOttery Luppitt Devon FrontDoor.jpg[edit]

File:MohunsOttery Luppitt Devon FrontDoor.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Nilfanion (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:MorlandJohnGreigByOliviaBryden.jpg[edit]

File:MorlandJohnGreigByOliviaBryden.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Hchc2009 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

chevron[edit]

Ermine spots on chevrons is not same of chevrons Ermine. the first are a charge and a second are fur. (excuse my english) --Chatsam (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pas de problème, merci. Disagree, chevrons ermine are blazoned "A chevron ermine", not "on a chevron argent X ermine spots". I have never seen the latter as a blazon in an authoritative source. If you can tell me otherwise (French or English heraldry), I will be able to agree with you.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]

File:GrocersCompany Arms.gif[edit]

Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ magyar ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

Hello!

Thank you for uploading File:GrocersCompany Arms.gif to the Wikimedia Commons. I noticed that when you uploaded from another Wikimedia project, you left out some important information, or copied it incorrectly. In the future, please consider using CommonsHelper, a tool which automates the process of moving files over. Thank you,

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice?[edit]

Hello Lobsterthermidor, I just completed illustrating Foster's Some Feudal Coats of Arms, totalling 5,196 arms and variations, from Abehall to Zouche. Would love to get your thoughts on how best to publish them here on the Commons. The illustrations were daunting, but the idea of uploading the files and associated metadata has my head spinning. Best, --R. S. Nourse (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like another great piece of work, congratulations and am looking forward to seeing them! It's not a work I was familiar with, but having found it on archive.org[1], clearly it's a great authority. As to the best way of publishing them here, I would guess that depends on exactly what they are. For example if an illustration of arms or a seal used by a specified person, I would suggest display on that person's wikipedia page, with caption stating "based on drawing of his seal attached to XYZ document, date..., illustrated by Foster...", with blazon. That's clearly a lot of work for so many images. However, you could just upload them several to a page (as for example you did with your rolls of arms images), perhaps in alphabetical order if no more logical order suggests itself, and then add the relevant categories in Category:Coats of arms of families of England. If in high resolution (as with your rolls of arms images), these can then be individually cropped and re-allocated to specific pages by another interested user at some future time (WP is after all a collaborative project). You will at least have delivered your image to a place where it will be seen by persons interested in that family's arms. Your overall category would thus be "Category:Foster's Some Feudal Coats of Arms" which could arguably be a sub-cat of Category:Rolls of arms. I suppose if you want to reduce your work to a minimum, which seems a fair option faced with 5,196 images, you could just upload each page of images with just a reference to the source, a page number if convenient and a link to the archive.org text, then leave it for someone else to pick up the baton. Is that helpful? I'm sure there is a way of uploading such a huge number of images mechanically, for example User:Dcoetzee did so with thousands of portraits in the National Portrait Gallery, London (see for background User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat). Perhaps you could ask him how he did it (p.s. you can't now as he's been banned, shame for someone who did such a great job!) or enquire at the Commons:Village pump, where possibly someone with the relevant technical expertise could help you make such a mass upload. Regards, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Great thoughts/advice. I'm going to start exploring all options. Might even see if I can track down Dcoetzee, though he appears to be rather pre-occupied at the moment. Best,--R. S. Nourse (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:MilesWatson 2ndBaronManton 1950or1951.PNG[edit]

File:MilesWatson 2ndBaronManton 1950or1951.PNG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Jolly Janner (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:MohunsOttery Gatehouse Luppitt Devon.jpg[edit]

File:MohunsOttery Gatehouse Luppitt Devon.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Hchc2009 (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:KellowayArms WithBordureEngrailed.png[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:KellowayArms WithBordureEngrailed.png. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

File:WilliamWyndham Died1951.jpg[edit]

File:WilliamWyndham Died1951.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Hchc2009 (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PNG[edit]

Hi, I've noticed you created a ton of PNG files of arms, using SVG elements. The files should SVG format. Is there a reason you're doing this? Thank you. Wikimandia (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a very good reason! It's very easy to create extremely flexible images in Inkscape using a "magic shield" which is basically an excluded shield-shaped window in a slightly larger white square, so chevrons, chiefs, bends, etc can be lowered to bottom when they "stick out" beyond the shield boundaries without having to be made to fit. Using this method they can very easily be adjusted in size, position etc. The completed arrangement is then exported as PNG and is cropped in MS Paint, and turns into a neat useable form, all within the shield boundaries. The resulting PNG quality and definition is excellent for WP commons purposes. Where I do useful original work, such as creating new charges in svg, I do generally upload those in svg format for others to use if they wish, see for example my recent creations File:BarnacleGoose svg element.svg, File:SteyningsArms.svg (my image of a bat), File:MulletFish svg-element.svg, File:Martlet (English) svg element.svg, File:Garb Example.svg, File:RoachFish in heraldry.svg, File:Owl svg Element.svg, etc. Hope that answers your question.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't see this response (really, ADD). Anyway, if I understand you correctly, you are talking about what is known as masking in Illustrator and is called Clipping in Inskcape. It does this for you, so it seems like you are creating extra work for yourself with the process especially with going to Paint!! I don't work with Inkscape much since it's not available in Mac and I have to use a special program called XQuartz to run it, but I checked and it worked fine. Just place a blank shield object on top of your design, select all the objects, and go to Object --> Clip --> Set. And then everything outside of the blank shield borders vanishes. Here is a video that shows how. I hope this is helpful. Wikimandia (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that sounds very useful, I'll try that out, thanks for the tip.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:GrocersCompany Arms.gif[edit]

File:GrocersCompany Arms.gif has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Gapfall (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:BeamAquaduct TorringtonDevon.png[edit]

File:BeamAquaduct TorringtonDevon.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

bjh21 (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:BurgoyneMonumentSouthTawtonDevon.png[edit]

File:BurgoyneMonumentSouthTawtonDevon.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

bjh21 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MonckArms.PNG[edit]

Hi, I noticed on this file, file:MonckArms.PNG, you have the tongue as blue. I have not found any Monck arms describing a blue tongue, but did see a version with a blue tongue in Google images from one of those sites that sell family arms merchandise, but they aren't always the most accurate. For Viscount Monck, I'm sure it's not blue, since this is a pretty good confirmation via color image. Anyway, if you are sure in some cases it's blue, could it be a different branch of the Monck family that has it for difference? Thanks!! Wikimandia (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, that article reproduces one of my old pre-Inkscape images, the original 22:35, 30 January 2014 upload for File:MonckArms.PNG without blue tongue (I was myself guilty of superseding it with a new image - which referring to our earlier discussion is totally hypocritical!). You're probably right, I just throw in the occasional blue tongue for decorative effect, probably a bad habit I should cease. I'll upload another without blue tongue.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

File:Philippa Archdekne HaccombeChurch Devon.PNG[edit]

català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ lietuvių ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Thank you for providing images to Wikimedia Commons. Please keep in mind that images and other files on Commons must be under a free license and should be useful to the Wikimedia projects. To allow others to use your files, some additional information must be given on the description page. Most importantly:

Describe what it is about in a short sentence. (What does the image show?)
State the author and the date of creation. If you made it yourself, say so explicitly. If it is from another Wikimedia user, link to the person's local user page. Best to use CommonsHelper.
If you did not create the file yourself, state the source you got it from.
Add a copyright tag - images without an appropriate license tag will be deleted.
Add the image to one or more gallery pages and/or appropriate categories, so it can be found by others. To find out where an image belongs, you can use CommonsSense.

If you copied the file from another wiki, please copy all information given there and say who uploaded it to that wiki. Use CommonsHelper.

It is recommended to use Template:Information to put that information on the description page. Have a look at Template talk:Information for details of the use of this template.

You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file.

Please add as much information as possible. If there is not sufficient information, the file may have to be deleted. For more information, follow the Commons:First steps guide. If you need help or have questions, please ask at the Help desk.

Thank you.

This message was added automatically by MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, if you need some help about it, please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the ->Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 15:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Licence now added, thanksLobsterthermidor (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nethway etc[edit]

Hi,

Please do not use the EPs for naming or categorisation (which is based on the civil parish structure). Modern ecclesiastical parishes are pretty much irrelevant to everything except churches. The ancient parishes are pertinent to historical buildings, but those should be referred to as historical units not the present day EPs--Nilfanion (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not always easy to find out which civil parish an estate lies within! Let's try to be a bit flexible?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its easy to find the current CP. Look on the current OS maps and it will show you ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English families[edit]

English families has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Notifying you as you created Families of England. Thanks! --Wikimandia (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth arms[edit]

I suppose is a continuation of the discussion you had with Wikimandia above. Ideally files like File:Arms CorporationOfPlymouth Devon.png should be SVGs. Given that your workflow is SVG, it should be easy to produce your final output as an SVG as well. Clipping/masking is an easy enough task and doing so will produce a much better output, and would be quicker than using Paint. I can give you some further support if you want, as I'm very used to trimming images.

One additional problem is that the files are on a white background and not a transparent one. When used in a simple image, as on w:Baron Churston, that's fine. However when used in an infobox template, as on w:Plymouth, the white in the bottom corners detracts from the displayed image. A transparent background would be superior.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm working on it, I'll see how I get on with clip.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I've made the background transparent.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't follow your point about "white in the bottom corners detracts from the displayed image" re transparency?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sure you can see the part I tweaked. The table below shows you the difference that makes. The first row shows on a dark background for clarity, while the second is the colour of an infobox background (the text is purely for padding)

Plymouth Plymouth Plymouth Plymouth	Buller Buller Buller Buller
Plymouth Plymouth Plymouth Plymouth	Buller Buller Buller Buller

I can see the difference between the two shields on the bottom row, and Plymouth's looks better as a result of my tweak.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having taken the trouble to do that. Perhaps my computer screen is obsolete, I can see only a very tiny difference, even at 133% magnification, namely the masonry is a tiny bit more pronounced as are the feathers, am I right? I guess I'm just going to have to take your word that it matters. I'm working on clip, please see my comment on your talk page, thanks.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, its the bit outside the shield that's the problem: The near triangular white patches in the bottom left and right corners. On the Plymouth ones, the image sits cleanly on the grey backgrounds, while on the Buller ones the white is jarring. IMO that detracts from the image, as it draws my eye away from the actual image to an irrelevancy.

I've replied re clipping on my talk page, let me know if you need anything else. :)--Nilfanion (talk) 06:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Grey backgrounds"? Perhaps we have got our viewing preferences set up differently, I don't have any grey backgrounds with WP, just white! That might explain why I can't see any difference in your tabulated images above?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly explain things! Apart from using monobook, mine is pretty much the default settings. This image is a screenshot of this section.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand your point, but I don't get any grey backgrounds like that for any WP pages on my settings, only white! Thanks for your help on clipping & uploading svg images, I'm pretty much up to speed on it now.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TrethurffeArms.png[edit]

Hi! Do you have File:TrethurffeArms.png available in SVG or remember if you found it on here somewhere in SVG? I'm unhappy with the stag heads available and would like to use one like that. Thanks! Wikimandia (talk) 02:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. I agree, that is a particularly nice image, I couldn't find it in svg, I had intended one day to trace it in svg, would be a useful addition. I made a "real-life" image at File:RedDeerStagHead.svg, but it lacks the artistic flair of the Trethurffe version. If I get some spare time I might have a go at doing it, unless you beat me to it. By the way, thanks for your prompting re uploading svg images, I think now (with an extra push in that direction from User:Nilfanion) I'm up and running.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikimandia: Now available as File:StagFace SVG element.svg.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About Upton Arms and your recent correction[edit]

You recently edited the page at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UptonArms.png to correct the Upton Arms from using the Cross Flory to the Cross Moline. I'm an Upton, and I've been trying to sort out which cross is the correct one, for a personal project, and I'm inclined to believe you are correct. Can you help me to understand how you made the determination that Cross Moline is the correct cross of the Upton Arms? Thank you and sorry but I'm totally new to using this tool. - Mike Upton Visigothi (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great question, am very pleased to help you. If you look at the bottom of that page you will see a link to Category:Upton arms, in which you will find the following image File:JohnUpton Died1687 StMary'sChurch Brixham Devon.PNG, which is fully described in the file description. You will see that the Upton arms on this monument (assuming not an erroneous modern restoration) show a cross moline of the type I recently re-edited. Thus the blazon in the Heraldic Visitation (Vivian, Lt.Col. J.L., (Ed.) The Visitations of the County of Devon: Comprising the Heralds' Visitations of 1531, 1564 & 1620, Exeter, 1895, p.743 (Sable, a cross flory argent)) is not in agreement. A cross flory is a cross with a fleur-de-lys at the ends. Pole (Pole, Sir William (d.1635), Collections Towards a Description of the County of Devon, Sir John-William de la Pole (ed.), London, 1791, p.506) gives the arms of Upton as Sable, a cross sarcell argent; a cross cercelée (or sarcelly) is like an exaggerated cross moline with its forked tips curving around both ways, like a ram's horns (see Wikipedia:cercelée). Thus faced with two differing blazons and one differing image of excellent authority (assuming faithfully restored) I plumped for the latter as likely to be most accurate. Keep your eye on Category:Upton arms, more images from Devon churches may be forthcoming, possibly quartered by other families. I hope as an Upton youself the image meets with your approval!Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arms of Upton, Viscount Templetown: Sable, a cross moline or (Montague-Smith, P.W. (ed.), Debrett's Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage and Companionage, Kelly's Directories Ltd, Kingston-upon-Thames, 1968, p.1090). Clearly illustrated on p.1090 as a cross moline. It appears prima facie from these arms that this Irish family was a branch of the Upton family of Devon, the tincture of the cross being a difference. Seems therefore to further confirm the cross is correctly a cross moline.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SVG files[edit]

Hey! So glad to see you're starting with the SVG. Just a reminder that it does have transparency, so always remember to put a blank white shield in the background or else it ends up looking like this. I edited File:Bartlett (of Ludbrooke) arms.svg for this reason, and I also noticed it had some SVG errors. This tends to happen when you use parts of files that already have SVG errors. You can check files at https://validator.w3.org/ before uploading to make sure they are error-free, and you can also check files already uploaded to Commons. The SVG validator should be available already - if not, add it in your preferences. That is the only downside to this format. There tends to be a lot of "cruft" in these files that causes errors when you grab one item and move it a different file - what I do to clean up a file I want to use is to save it as PDF from Illustrator or Inkscape, then convert it back to SVG at https://cloudconvert.com/pdf-to-svg, then reopen it, and no problem. Hope this is helpful! — ʷiḳỉℳẚṅ₫¡₳ (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Am somewhat confused as I can't see the error you describe on the original version of File:Bartlett (of Ludbrooke) arms.svg, and can see very little difference in your current image. Possibly something to do with my particular screen/computer set-up, as I had a similar issue with User:Nilfanion who said my images were appearing on his screen with grey backgrounds ouside the shields, but were white on mine. Clearly it's going to be difficult if I can't see these errors on my screen. I will just have to take your word for it and "remember to put a blank white shield in the background". I'll have a go at using cloudconvert in the near future as you suggest. Many thanks.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:ArmsOfEarlOfDevon.jpg[edit]

File:ArmsOfEarlOfDevon.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

109.238.80.47 15:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beaupel's ordinary[edit]

That's not what I'd call a chevron, though the caption says it is. Is this image designed from a blazon that says chevron, or from an image that you misblazoned? —Tamfang (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, it was a brain-fade moment. Blazon corrected to "bend", per source (Pole). Image is correct. For other images of these arms, all with bend, some from 17th c., please see Category:Beaple arms.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:WellingtonBootsHouseholdCavalry.jpg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:WellingtonBootsHouseholdCavalry.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:WellingtonBootsHouseholdCavalry.jpg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

Jarekt (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of categories on Llywelyn Fawr[edit]

Good morning. Can you give me the reason why you deleted these two categories, please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, Llywelyn Fawr now has his own category for his own coats of arms, which itself is in the two categories you mentioned. Look at Category:Coats of arms of Llywelyn the Great, see which cats it is in. He has effectively climbed up the scale of importance in wp commons. So it should be an improvement, I hope you will agree.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Devonian Coat of arms[edit]

Hi Lobsterthermidor, amazing collections of works! I was wondering if you could create me a Eurasian coot for a coat of arms from the Devon area.

--C. D. Southcott Esq. 22:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthcottC (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. Examples of your family's coat of arms are available at Category:Southcott arms - the one drawn by me is a bit rough. I will definitely have a go at that when I have an hour or so to spare. I assume you want it to draw the Southcott arms? Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging File:Owl svg Element.svg[edit]

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ 한국어 ∙ lietuvių ∙ latviešu ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ मराठी ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ اردو ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This media was probably deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Owl svg Element.svg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own).

The file probably has been deleted. If you sent a permission, try to send it again after 14 days. Do not re-upload. When the VRT-member processes your mail, the file can be undeleted. Additionally you can request undeletion here, providing a link to the File-page on Commons where it was uploaded ([[:File:Owl svg Element.svg]]) and the above demanded information in your request.

— Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 18:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

see Commons:Derivative_works for details — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 18:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image was my own work, I have applied for un-deletion.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC) Re-uploaded as File:Owl SVGImage.svg with full licence info now given.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

File:Bosum OfBosum'sHele Arms.svg[edit]

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

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

This message was added automatically by MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)}, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, replaced by File:Bosum (of Bosum's Hele, Dittisham) arms.svg, thanks, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map HollandHouseEstate Kensington 1894.png[edit]

File:Map HollandHouseEstate Kensington 1894.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: This is not public domain. The Survey of London was published in 1973 and the image is clearly copyrighted. The image is described as being based on the Ordnance Survey map of 1894; it is a new work.

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans ∙ asturianu ∙ azərbaycanca ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ English ∙ español ∙ euskara ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ Lëtzebuergesch ∙ magyar ∙ Malti ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ тоҷикӣ ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

— Scott • talk 16:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Popinjays_in_heraldry[edit]

Popinjays in heraldry has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

DiegoAma (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heralds, arms and categories[edit]

Please have an overall plan for these and not over-complicate categories. We should be helping people find the files and not hide them away under sub-categories. Sodacan (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry's a complex business, as you know better than most of us - I'm a big fan of your work, thanks for all that you do. It's actually an honour to have you visiting my talk page, if that's not too cringeworthy a thing to say. Categorising can actually help people to understand heraldry, and how it all fits together. Look back at the dire state of the cat "Arms of Plantagenet" a couple of years ago, it was a dumping ground for hundreds of images of royal arms on 19th c. teapots to 14th c. monuments in Westminster Abbey. This is a topic where a basic heraldic competence is required by the user, for example we don't dumb-down to "Category:Red shields with white dots". We have to split up the millions of images we have into meaningful chunks, else categories are useless as a research tool. Once categories get too big, the task of sorting them into logical sub-cats becomes too daunting. I frequently use categories on WP to help me identify coats of arms, and the more search terms available the better, I have found. As I'm sure you will agree, the only effective way to search in heraldry is by blazons, not by looking at images, which would take decades to process. Categories seem to me to allow quick searches based on terms within the blazon, which is surely a good thing. I don't think "over-complicating categories" is possible with heraldry, there are so many features which so many coats have in common, and these, I suggest, require to be categorised.

Categories also help in understanding heraldry, for example if an element was inherited from another family, or if arms of one family are a differenced version of the arms of another family, maybe ancient feudal overlords, that needs to be reflected in the categorisation. That is maybe an advanced level of categorisation, more subtle than merely "Lions in heraldry", but still useful. This should help, not hinder, the heraldic researcher who has built up a basic competence in the subject. One who has not troubled himself to do so is fighting a losing battle anyway. There is also another side to categorisation, based on genealogical matters, not merely on the decorative features. This side I suggest is extremely important, the family-history research community is now huge worldwide and is fascinated by coats of arms, and heraldry is used by countless art-historians and auction houses to identify the provenance of art-works.

So in conclusion, I understand your comment, but my intention is always to help, rather than hinder, the heraldic researcher, and I would not consider creating any category which I though would not be useful as a reasearch tool by the user or as an aid to understanding the logic of heraldry. As long as there is a clear path from the top category, for example "Heraldry in England", down to the most detailed sub-cat, this should be navigable by most reasonably competent users, so hopefully no categories will be "hidden away" as you fear. Navigating even a complex but logical pathway of cats will be a lot quicker than eyeballing a million randomly collected images! If you have any specific issues, please let me know. Best wishes.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Ferre[edit]

Arms of Sir Guy Ferre:Gules, a fer-de-moline argent over all a bendlet azure.

Hello Lobster,

You created the picture on the left long time ago. However, unless I am wrong, the charge is a cross moline, and not a fer-de-moline, which is the right picture.

Fer de moline

What I do not know is which of the text or of the figure is correct for Guy Ferre. Do you have insight on this ?

Merci d'avance, JohnNewton8 (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnNewton8: Hi, sorry for the delay in my response. For actual examples of his arms see Category:Ferre arms, which show a cross moline, as drawn. By the way a fer-de-moline is just a bit of industrial hardware which had many different designs over the centuries as technology changed, one of which was the cross moline, probably so named for that reason (French moulin = mill)? Its purpose was to transfer the torque of the mill drive shaft into the mill stone, hence it needed long bifurcated arms, but don't take that as gospel I'm not an engineer! Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lobsterthermidor: Thanks, it makes sense! (being said by both a French and an engineer) :-D JohnNewton8 (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in France, the cross moline was called croix ancrée (anchored cross). JohnNewton8 (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's a pleasure to discuss these fine details with you. As we know the French and British often come to very different technical solutions to the same problems. Vive la différence! Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important message for file movers[edit]

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
To perform file name swaps.
When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:GobodisleghArms LiveryDole Exeter.svg[edit]

Copyright status: File:GobodisleghArms LiveryDole Exeter.svg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:GobodisleghArms LiveryDole Exeter.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Brass ElizabethBray Died1573 WifeOf SirRalphVerney Aldbury Church Hertfordshire.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Brass ElizabethBray Died1573 WifeOf SirRalphVerney Aldbury Church Hertfordshire.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Brass ElizabethBray Died1573 WifeOf SirRalphVerney Aldbury Church Hertfordshire.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Yours sincerely, Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File description for Grandisson seal[edit]

Hi. The description of File:Seal JohnDeGrandisson BishopOfExeter Died1369.png is wrong - it refers to Brantingham. Could you make the appropriate corrections please? Smalljim (talk) 19:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:BarnstapleBoroughArms HeraldicBrass 1913 QueenAnne'sWalk Barnstaple.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:BarnstapleBoroughArms HeraldicBrass 1913 QueenAnne'sWalk Barnstaple.jpg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:BarnstapleBoroughArms HeraldicBrass 1913 QueenAnne'sWalk Barnstaple.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An unfree Flickr license has been found on File:LedgerStone&Brass GeorgeVerney Died1574 Chapel ComptonVerney.png[edit]

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ sicilianu ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ +/−

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons from Flickr, File:LedgerStone&Brass GeorgeVerney Died1574 Chapel ComptonVerney.png, has been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer and found available on Flickr under the license Noncommercial (

), No derivative works (

), which isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons, per the licensing policy. Unless the Flickr user changes the license to one that Wikimedia Commons accepts, the file will be speedily deleted. Commons:Flickr files/Appeal for license change has information about sending the Flickr user an appeal asking for the license to be changed. Only Flickr images tagged as

(CC BY),

(CC BY-SA),

(CC0) and

(PDM) are allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Once the license on Flickr is changed, you may replace the {{Unfree Flickr file}} tag with {{Flickrreview}} so that an administrator or reviewer can review the image again.

Túrelio (talk) 08:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The item photographed is a 2-D flat item, exactly like an oil painting (the oil of which can be as thick as an engraved line can be deep), which is free from copyright after 100 years from the death of the creator of the art work. The file should not therefore have been deleted. "Photographs, taken either by yourself or someone else, that are faithful reproductions of 2D public domain works of art." See Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter . Perhaps I should have used licence {{PD-Art}}, as monumental brass is essentially the same as "photograph of an old stained glass window or tapestry found on the Internet or in a book ✓OK. Although many materials such as stained glass and fabric possess some three-dimensional texture, at ordinary viewing distances this texture is essentially invisible. As long as the surface is not noticeably curved or tattered/broken, and the original work is old enough to have entered the public domain, it is considered a faithful reproduction of the original with no original contribution". {{PD-Art}} does not apply to 3D works of art such as sculptures, since the photographer was able to generate originality by virtue of a choice of viewpoints and lighting arrangements. Anything that could cast a shadow is excluded. Monumental brasses are essentially flat, no shadows cast. (Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). Lobsterthermidor (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:FoxHuntingCoat Male Black 3Buttons (English).svg[edit]

Copyright status: File:FoxHuntingCoat Male Black 3Buttons (English).svg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:FoxHuntingCoat Male Black 3Buttons (English).svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 17:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Heraldic_sea_horses[edit]

Heraldic sea horses has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sign CogworthyFarm Yarnscombe Devon.JPG[edit]

File:Sign CogworthyFarm Yarnscombe Devon.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

88.98.94.195 19:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fletcher coat of arms, St Nicholas, Halewood.jpg[edit]

How to confuse people not conversant with the conventions of heraldry. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True! But it confuses those who are conversant with it / who study it / even more! I spend quite a lot of my time categorising hatchments and monuments - to do that you first have to discover which historic county the church is in, to consult the relevant Victorian book. 99% of the literature on heraldry (including heraldic visitations by county) was published when ceremonial counties were all we had, and "county families" /landed gentry tended to stay in the same county for many generations. This literature will never be re-written, as all that is to be said has been said. You will thus find books on "the heraldry of Norfolk", published in 1887, covering all the churches within the ceremonial county. Thus coats of arms are very closely tied to ceremonial counties. We can thus talk about "Norfolk heraldry", Lancashire heraldry, etc. Cheshire heraldry for example often features the wheat garb of the Earls of Chester. The significance gets lost when referred to as part of some new urban conglomeration. Also, the county families often inter-married within county to keep local power local, so the same coats of arms pop up in many churches within the historic county, as quarterings. If we really wanted to make heraldry easy we'd dump all the tinctures and talk about gold, blue and red. That was tried before a few times, never caught on. The problem gets very intense on the outskirts of London, where Surrey, Kent, Berkshire, Essex heraldry all tend to get lumped together as "London heraldry" - which properly refers to City of London heraldry.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: by the way thanks for the great images, keep em coming!Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arms of Sir Walter Denys[edit]

Hi Lobsterthermidor!

First of all, thank you for your phenomenal work, I found it to be an invaluable resource when researching Denys family history - your photos and descriptions (e.g. Siston Court, arms, Denys monumental brass, etc.) are exceptionally helpful and very interesting to see.

Since heraldry is a specialty of yours, I was wondering if you could help me identify the arms in the 4th quarter of Sir Walter Denys' coat of arms (chevron between three roses) referenced in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Denys_(sheriff)? I don't believe those to be the Danvers arms (chevron between three mullets) as these appear to be roses as opposed to stars.

According to the 1623 Visitation of Gloucester, Sir Walter's Mother was a Stradling and based on what I read online, the 1520 Dennis pedigree seems to confirm it (exhibit 101 in Heralds' Commemorative Exhibition 1484-1934). However, (if I understood it correctly) in the pedigree, Sir Walter's mother is holding the same arms (chevron between three roses), which are not the traditional Stradling arms (paly of six, on a bend three cinqufoil). According to Burke's Armorial and Memorials of the Danvers Family, there is an alternate Stradling coat of arms (paly of six, on a chevron three cinquefoil), but the arms in question appear to be a chevron between three roses. The Wikipedia article mentions in the footnotes that those are the arms of Wadhams of Devon, but I am not sure what the connection would be to the Dennis family in the 1430s. This book describes them as ancient arms of Russell, but I wasn't able to find any corroboration to that statement. https://books.google.ca/books?id=bDlKAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA62&pg=PA65#v=onepage&q&f=false

Unfortunately, there appears to be no contemporary documents confirming the identity of Sir Walter's mother (i.e. Maurice Denys' first wife).

Any thoughts or guidance would be much appreciated.

Many thanks in advance!

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyfun21 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, many thanks for your appreciation, wow, you took me back a few years there! The Denys arms are very interesting for so many reasons. I agree that these cannot be the arms of Danvers, the most Sir Walter Denys could do with the arms of Danvers would be to impale them, as his wife. He would be unable to quarter them, as of course quartered arms relate to ancestry - and that from an heraldic heiress only, i.e. a female ancestor who had no brothers. As I recall, Katherine Stradling was not an heiress, so her son would not be able to quarter Stradling. These arms A chevron between three roses therefore appear to be an unidentified heiress brought in via the Russells, (as was Ferre, via Gorges, to Russell) or maybe even an unknown heiress ancestor of Sir Gilbert Denys. The most remote pedigree of the Denys family I have found is in the Golden Grove Book, a Welsh manuscript, but I don't remember seeing any heiress wives in it. There seems nowhere else the chevron and roses arms could have come from. That still does not explain why Sir Walter Denys in the brass dropped his father's quartering of Ferre. The arms of Danvers (modern) seem to be shown correctly by Sir Maurice Denys on his new house at Siston. I don't follow your statement that "Sir Walter's mother is holding the same arms (chevron between three roses)", what do you mean by "holding"? But that sounds like an interesting line of research. The Stradling arms (Paly of six, on a bend three cinqufoils) are well documented, originating in Bergundy or Savoy if I remember correctly, see historical examples in Category:Stradling arms. There's a good website on the Stradling family which explains it. Clearly the file description for the Denys brass needs some updating, I'll put it on my list. I agree that the reference to Wadham is totally irrelevant. Maybe the answer to your question will never be known, sadly in this game one always hits a brick wall at some point! Best wishes and good luck in your researches. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobsterthermidor, thank you for your quick and detailed response! I remember seeing comments in an online debate from 2004 how the clues Sir Walter's maternity could be found in coat of arms of Siston Court and thanks to your photos/descriptions, that and much more (e.g. the monumental brass) can be easily viewed, especially during the pandemic (with its travel restrictions). Don't get me wrong, I would have loved to travel to Gloucestershire from Canada to see it for myself though. :)

I am glad that I asked you the question since you have provided a wealth of information - I didn't know any of that. I love medieval history and have an appreciation for heraldry, but wasn't aware of how the arms could be impaled and quartered. Apologies, my statement wasn't clear without the context. The 1520 annotated pictorial Dennis pedigree shows each family member holding their respective coat of arms and I was relying on a photo from a bookseller and an old online post to identify the arms of Sir Walter's mother in it. However, I am going to order this book to confirm that's that's correct and I'll report back to you. The original pedigree is held by the College of Arms. I think based on what you told me about quartering the arms of female heiresses, the arms depicted in the Denys pedigree, together with the arms in his 4th quarter might contain a clue to Sir Walter's possible mother (or at least rule some candidates out). There may be a brick wall in the end after all, but I am finding that it's the arms described in family histories and found on tombs that provide information where records don't exist. Either way, I am enjoying it. :)

That's very interesting about the Golden Grove pedigrees, I wasn't aware of this book at all - I'd be very curious to see the pedigrees for the Denys and Stradling families, especially to see if the parents of Sir Walter's mother are indicated. Would you happen to have easy access to it? I searched online for it, but my local library is not a FamilySearch affiliated library, so I am unable to view their microfilm copy of it. Also, I wasn't able to find the Stradling website with the detailed description of their arms history. No rush to reply, this isn't urgent and your help so far was greatly appreciated!

Andrew User:Historyfun21

Hi again Andrew, it's good to talk to someone who shares my own interests! I hope you make it to Gloucestershire one day, there's nothing like seeing the objects in the flesh and being in the place. I didn't know there was any debate over the identity of the mother of Sir Walter Denys - as Katherine Stradling. I am relying on the 1623 Heraldic Visitation, which shows that very clearly, but also it's well documented that Sir Edward Stradling of St Donat's Castle in Glamorgan acquired the wardship and marriage of Maurice Denys, father of Sir Walter Denys. That gave him the right to marry off his daughter to Sir Walter, which he did, it would seem. Maurice married secondly Alice Poyntz, by whom he had issue including the great w:Hugh Denys, groom of the stool to King Henry VII. See wikipedia article w:Maurice Denys (sheriff). Am I missing something? I haven't seen the 1520 annotated pictorial Dennis pedigree you mention, if you do get it, be sure to upload some of the images to here, that would be very interesting. The Golden Grove Book of Welsh Pedigrees is in the National Library of Wales (National Library of Wales manuscript number Castell Gorfod 7[2])- about 10 years ago they put all page images online, but it's seemingly no longer available. No doubt they would e-mail you a photo of the relevant page for a small fee. I have a copy if all else fails, let me know and I'll e-mail it to you - if I can find it in my notes! It takes the Denys pedigree back to Gloucestershire in the 13th c., to a certain "William Denys" from where it is supposed they moved across the River Severn into Glamorgan (see w:Twelve Knights of Glamorgan for background) and settled at Waterton, within the lordship of Coity Castle - then by coincidence returned to Glos on the marriage of Sir Gilbert Denys to the heiress of Siston. Sadly the excellent website Stradling.org.uk is no longer in existence, but it explained how the Stradlings came from what is now Switzerland, supposedly in the retinue of the Grandisson family, seated at the château de Grandson in the canton of Vaud, now in Switzerland, then in Savoy. The arms of Stradling are clearly a difference of Grandisson, suggesting a relationship, feudal or familial, as Denys seems to have had to Cantilupe, again based on the heraldry. See Category:Grandison arms and wikipedia article on Bishop w:John Grandisson. Best wishesLobsterthermidor (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it’s certainly great to e-meet you! I definitely share your interests, but your scope of knowledge and depth of research dwarfs mine - I am very glad that we are having this conversation, since I am learning a lot. I will simply cut and paste what you wrote about the Denis family and added it to my notes, lol. Is Gloucestershire an area you have a particular interest in? I really enjoy reading about English medieval history (or about most pre-1820 European history), so I loved my two trips to the UK so far, but neither of them included seeing a lot castles and manors. Once the pandemic subsides, I am hoping visit again to remedy that! To give you little bit of a background, I recently received some information about my fiancé’s not-too-distant ancestors and have been thoroughly enjoying researching her genealogy. I’ve been able to trace her descent from the Denys family and the only uncertain link so far was the maternity of Sir Walter Dennis. According to Douglas Richardson’s Plantagenet Ancestry, Sir Walter’s mother, as per the 1623 Visitation, is Katherine Stradling, daughter of Sir Edward Stradling (and thus granddaughter of Cardinal Henry Beaufort). However, in 2004, there was a big debate as to how certain this is. I think it boiled down to three main reasons 1) The group disliked/distrusted Richardson’s work 2) Clark’s Limbus Patrum Morganiae Et Glamorganiae didn’t include Katherine Stradling as a daughter of Sir Edward, but included his illegitimate children, thus a raising a question if Katherine was a legitimate. However, I don’t think that it’s a reliable source since Clark also has Katherine as a daughter of Sir Edward Stradling and wife of Maurice Denys in another part of the book. Plus, I believe he mixed up the illegitimate children of a later Sir Edward 3) Other than the 1623 Visitation there was no earlier source indicating the father (or mother) of Katherine Stradling. The 1520 pedigree apparently says it’s Joan Stradling, but doesn’t indicate who her parents were. However, I think the significance of coat of arms were overlooked!

I have some good news though – those books arrived today! I am new to wikicommons, so here is a Google Drive link (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LsZxKcS7r92l70RP89-s0kH3l1i18dh3). I am pretty sure I’ve identified Sir Walter correctly (on the basis of the coat of arms of his and his son’s wives) and if I am right, then his mother’s coat of arms raises some questions since he quartered them. Could you please take a look to confirm that the mother of Sir Walter is the one who’s holding the shield with three roses between a chevron? If that’s the case, what would be the implication to the assumption that Maurice’s first wife was the daughter of Sir Edward Stradling? I can try to take better quality photos of certain sections if you’d prefer.

I really appreciated your offer to help with the Golden Grove book! I found a Family Search affiliated library in Montreal, about 30 minutes away from me and I should be able to access the microfilm there. I’ll take some screenshots and send them your way as well.

Thanks for telling me about the Denys and Stradlings origins, that’s fascinating. I didn’t realize the Grandison arms were so similar to the Stradling arms. I wish I knew about the significance of the Grandison castle when I was on exchange in Vaud (specifically Lausanne). It’s ironic that Stradlings came over after the conquest and couldn’t have been one of the twelve knights, a story the later Sir Edward helped popularize. That’s too bad about the Stradling website, I wasn’t able to find it Internet Archive either. All the best!

Andrew User:Historyfun21

Hi Andrew, thanks for bringing that book to my notice, I would love to see a good image of the illustrated pedigree - for the record I think we're talking about "Heralds' Commemorative Exhibition, 1484-1934, Held at the College of Arms : Enlarged and Illustrated Catalogue, Published by McWhirter Publishing Company Limited, 1970". The images you sent me are too blurred to see with much accuracy, but I can see the Corbet raven and work my way down from that, and I would agree that Morys Denys's first wife, at left does indeed seem to hold a shield showing a chevron between three roses. But I can't read the handwriting next to her, it's too blurred in your image. It's hard enough reading mediaeval handwriting even when in focus! Can you read it? Maybe you could send another image of her alone, with the writing in focus? For me the convincing facts confirming a Stradling marriage are the virtual hi-jacking of the Denys and Russell families by Sir Edward Stradling after the deaths of Sir Maurice Russell and Sir Gilbert Denys: 1: he acquired the wardship and marriage of Maurice Denys, Sir Gilbert's heir; 2: he married off Margaret Russell (Maurice's widowed mother) to his own nephew John Kemys; and 3: he married off Joan Dauntsey (Margaret's widowed step-mother) to his uncle Sir John Stradling. Thus he and his family acquired (temporary) control of a large part of both the Denys and Russell estates. But if you want a definitive answer I suggest you write to and/or telephone the College of Arms in London with your query, and they will study the matter and give you a written report. It may cost you a couple of hundred pounds, but at least you will have an opinion from the best possible source. You could also obtain from them a high-resolution colour photo of the illustrated pedigree itself, showing all the heraldic tinctures. One thing I did notice, if I'm not mistaken, is that the shield held by Sir Gilbert Denys shows quarterings, I would be interested to see those, they must be from back in Glamorgan, about which not much is known. I assume your fiancée is descended from the Denys lady (?) who emigrated to America, who Douglas Richardson was so interested in? I'm a big fan of both Richardson and Clark - who I was surprised to discover was a wealthy engineer full-time but researched Glamorgan history in his spare time so it seems, more than a lifetime's work for most. Your fiancée certainly has a pedigree to be proud of! Regards,Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening! That's correct in regard to the book, but my copy was published by Tabarad Press (exhibit 101). Actually, two of the photos are from the The Family History Book: A Guide to Tracing Your Ancestors by Stella Colwell (pg. 15), I bought both of them. My apologies, I'll try take some better pictures tomorrow and I'll also annotate the arms that I recognize (mostly thanks to your work). I wasn't able to make out most of the writing, but others were able to read it better (https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/sbk7pHzVznM/m/dxpPd_rW4tkJ). Again, the thoroughness of your knowledge of the Denys family is very impressive. Yes! I found it fascinating how Sir Edward managed to keep so many of the manors in the family, he was certainly very successful/acquisitive in growing his family's estates/influence. Plus, marrying the granddaughter of John of Gaunt was a good match too, since I believe Henry Beaufort oversaw Sir Gilbert's will. I think it is very probable that Sir Maurice married a Stradling, but I think the 2004 debate centered on if he married a daughter of Jane Beaufort. One of the reasons I am enjoying doing genealogy so much is it affords an opportunity to be immersed in the workings of the medieval world. I was thinking about contacting the College of Heralds, but wanted to take it as far as I could first so my questions would be very specific. I'd certainly would love to have a better copy of that pedigree. Either way, if I decide to go ahead with it, I'll share whatever I obtain. In regard to my fiancé's ancestry, actually not quite. She's descended from Charles Henry May, Vice Admiral (and whose son emigrated to Canada), who is in turn descended from the Ponsonby/Folliot/Ligon families (i.e. the union of William Ligon and Eleanor Dennis). Thank you, I don't think my fiancé is into her pedigree as much as I am, but she is certainly appreciative of it. :) I also like and trust Richardson's work, I find him to be a very thorough researcher who examines multiple sources. It certainly makes it easier to research genealogy if you can link it to someone in one of his books (Thomas Ligon is one of the gateway ancestors in his books). Still, since the Dennis/Stradling marriage would imply descent from Edward III, I'd like to be absolutely certain. As for Clark, don't get me wrong, his work is very impressive and I think we're lucky that he took the time out of being engineer to preserve a wealth of information about local history, I just think he wasn't an absolutely reliable source to indicate 15th century illegitimacy and as such, there was no reason to doubt Katherine Stradling's parentage on that basis alone. I admire the gentlemen-scholars of the past, can you imagine how much more they could have accomplished with a laptop and a connection to the Internet, that most people nowadays use to browse or watch videos? :D Andrew User:Historyfun21

Aha, the Lygon connection, very interesting, you may have seen my photo of the heraldry on the Lygon-Denys chest tomb in Fairford Church. I haven't looked into the Lygons in much depth but there's a family no doubt as interesting as the Denyses, as are all the others you mention. The Tame family of Fairford is very interesting, which was how the Denyses came to be associated with Fairford, and that leads into learning about the famous stained-glass windows in that church, erected by the Tames - I totally agree that studying genealogy leads to far wider knowledge. I think it was William Dugdale who compiled his amazingly complex works by writing random facts and names on scraps of paper/parchment as he came across them in his researches, and putting them into the appropriate one or more of possibly many hundred small leather pouches - basically a primitive filing system, and then when he had completed his reasearch he opened all the pouches and made all the connections, like a police murder investigation from the 1950s. I'm delighted that you find my contributions here useful, thank you!Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Fortunately, the Lygon pedigree has been thoroughly researched by Douglas Richardson, although it's Thomas Ligon of Virginia who is the gateway ancestors for most Americans. As it happens, I came across your photo of the Lygon/Denys coat of arms the day before and was familiar with all the arms contained in it! I should also add that it's very helpful that you describe the quarterings in the photo description, I was able to cross-reference some of the arms to other sources that didn't have any descriptions. Thanks for sharing about the Tame family and William Dugdale, I'll have to read up on both of those. Lol, I think my fiancé wouldn't put up with me leaving hundreds of little pouches all over the house with bits of genealogical research in it. :) But joking aside, I am astounded at the vast amount of information contained in Clark's work, or say, Nichols. Volumes and volumes of research/information with drawings, engravings, etc, all typed out without the benefit of a modern word processor, nor indexed digital searches. I was able to find an app that magnifies and adjusts the contrast, let's try this again (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1LsZxKcS7r92l70RP89-s0kH3l1i18dh3). I've labelled the ones I think I identified in the file names (not 100% sure about Anne Berkley, but one of the quarterings seem like the Berkley arms to me). Please take a look and let me know if you can make out the caption by Joan/Katherine Stradling. I've also tried my best to get the a good photo of Sir Gilbert's arms. Many thanks and have a great evening! Andrew User:Historyfun21

Ok Andrew, thanks for all those much improved images. I think I've got it: Jehanna Stradlyng ux(or) pri(ma) Maur. Denys, which means "Joan Stradling, first wife of Maurice Denys". If I'm correct, she's been drawn holding the wrong coat of arms. Reading this style of hand writing is not easy, you have the letters themselves, the language and the abbreviations all to contend with - and you have the pixels of the modern printing process to deal with too. Many of the abbreviations are standard. But I think that's what it says. You will need to convince yourself, the best way to get your eye in from my own experience is to look at various similar documents with modern transcripts to learn the shapes of the letters. This could clear up your query once and for all, I hope so! Let me know what you think. Regards, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Lobsterthermidor! I really appreciated your time and help revisiting the Denys family! Great! Let me know if you want any more photos. I am new to this, so reading even 17th century chancery hand is a bit of a challenge for me, but I certainly would like to improve since I've been enjoying this so much. I think you got it and it mirrors what was said in the previous online post from some years back. Since the mismatched coat of arms doesn't add clarity, I'll rely on Richardson's published lineage for Sir Walter Dennis. I am curious about couple of things though: is it certain that the monumental brass was actually commissioned at the time of Sir Walter's death in 1505? And if it was, and his arms displayed on it are correct, how was he able to put his mother's arms in the 4th quarter (I thought the mother's arms would go into 2 and 3 quarters)? Alternatively, how common were errors in arms on tombs or in pedigrees? I wonder if there was animosity between the Denys and Stradling families since Sir Edward managed to keep Sir Maurice from gaining his full inheritance and as the result the Stradling arms variant got corrupted almost 100 years after Jehanna Stradling's death. I also noticed that three roses (or cinquefoil) between a chevron is not present in Sir Thomas Stradling's arms https://museum.wales/collections/online/object/95669d86-7fe8-3762-a422-f55d267e97ce/Thomas-d1480-and-Elizabeth-d1533-Stradlinge/?field0=string&value0=stradling&field1=with_images&value1=1&index=3 . I have one last question as well that's unrelated - I came across this in the Chronicle of Calais "The main authority for the Turpyn pedigree is not the Leicestershire Visitation of 1619, but Vincent's Leicester, 217" I noticed that Vincent is listed as one of the Camden's deputies in the visitation, but have you ever come across this Vincent's Leicester as a separate document? Thanks again and have a great evening! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyfun21 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, regarding the date of the brass at Olveston, the clothing and hair styles are right for the period, so definitely "contemporary" with 1505. Sometimes brasses and monuments were ordered by the deceased while still living, but I would guess it was erected by his son and heir, maybe by his widow if he had one, so I agree it would be strange if the arms are wrong. Maybe we should presume that they are right and that we are missing something. It's clearly notable that the herald who drew the illustrated pedigree picked up the same arms. The College of Arms might be able to help. It would be correct to place the arms of an heiress mother in the lowest quarter, not in 2 & 3 or higher up, but if she was your family's only heiress, you would have to fill 4 quarters by repeating the arms - or maybe you would do that too if she was particularly prestigious, e.g. royal, blanking out all your other heiresses. Generally in the placement of quarters the most ancient hieresses are placed in earlier quarters, by seniority. You would probably not give up two quarters for an heiress mother's arms if that meant knocking out other ancient prestigious quarterings, such as Russell, etc. You might have to up the size of your shield to 6 quarters, show her arms as 5 and repeat your paternal arms in 6 - or find/invent other heiresses (sub-heiresses or sub-sub-heiresses) to fill in the gaps! Surprising that Sir Walter's shield was not bumped up to 6, thus retaining Ferre. Look at the notorious Stowe Armorial, with 719 quarterings, no doubt packed with sub-heiresses, sub-sub-heiresses, etc, many dubious or pure inventions. It was all about prestige, so if you had "nabbed" a really prestigious heiress in your ancestry, you might promote her arms to the 2nd quarter. For example to show the royal arms in a lesser position might be deemed insulting. But I still don't think Joan/Katherine Stradling was an heiress, as I think she had brothers, so her arms should not be quartered at all. Perhaps if she was her father's only child by a certain wife and her brothers were by another wife, that might class her as an heraldic heiress, I'm not sure. I'm a bit rusty on this pedigree as I was looking at this topic over 10 years ago! I too have wondered whether there was animosity between the Denys and Stradling families, put yourself in the position of the young Maurice whose maternal grandfather and father had just died and who was now under the control of a stranger (presumably) who seemed to be taking over left right and centre. But it would all have died down in the next generation as that controlling stranger became "grandpa"! I found this on an "unsecure connection", which I didn't want to dive into: "Vincent Collection - AIM25https://aim25.com › cgi-bin › vcdf › detail Manuscripts collected by Augustine Vincent, some also created by him. ... 1618-19 (MS Vincent 113); Warwickshire, 1619 (MS Vincent 126); Leicestershire, ..." . I started looking for "Vincent History of Leicestershire", but no results. Best wishes, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobsterthermidor, wow, I am glad I asked a subject matter expert. :) That’s fascinating, I didn’t know any of that (e.g. order of precedence, invented heiresses and insulting royal arms by incorrect placements). I really enjoyed our conversation and it made me realize that I’d like to read up on heraldry. The Stowe armorial is giving me a migraine though. I agree that arms from the contemporary monumental brass are likely to be right (especially since the pedigree was prepared by a herald), but what’s confusing are the mother’s arms which aren’t Stradling arms (even though her name is), nor any of recognizable local/related families’ arms and her arms also got quartered by her son, implying she was a heiress without any brothers (as far as we know Sir Edward Stradling was married only once and had at least one son, Sir Henry). Like you said, Sir Walter dropped Ferre arms instead of going up to 6 quarters, so he must have thought the arms to be prestigious enough to do so. However, I noticed that his son, Sir William Denys, “simplified” the arms to Denys, Corbet and Russell. I was also thinking that if Sir Walter inherited any manors through his mother, we might find clues about her that way, but she might have died too young to inherit anything. I think this is far as we can take it with the information we have and I also think that thanks to your knowledge of the Denys family and their arms, we are probably closer to the truth of the matter than a lot of people who were debating it in 2004. I’d love to have the College of Arms look into it, but I don’t think my fiancé would appreciate me spending money to potentially disprove a 600 year old marriage and her only descent from Edward III (not that she’s particularly concerned about it), lol. Still, I think I’ll enquire about the cost and we’ll go from there. For sure, I think that Sir Edward Stradling was very astute at arranging marriages to keep the estates “in the family” and that wouldn’t have endeared him to Maurice Denys, especially since he was possibly displaced from Siston Court as the result. Still, like you say, shared ancestors would have helped lessen tensions over time.

Thank you!!! This is great, this is precisely what I was looking for. I opened that website without any issues and it shows that the documents that I need are at the College of Arms. The 1619 Visitation of Leicestershire has the wife of Edward Villiers, Sibella Turpin as the sister of Sir George Turpin, MP, which is at odds with their family pedigree, as well as chronology. According to the website, Camden’s deputy, Vincent, has left 200 volumes of notes with expanded pedigrees – I’ll have to ask the College of Arms about this one too after I track down a copy of Catalogue of Manuscripts in the College of Arms: Collections, Volume 1 that has a detailed index of the Vincent collection. Wouldn't it be great if they digitized their entire collection so one wouldn't have to rely on 19th century reprints of the visitations that are found online? All the best! Andrew [[User:Historyfun21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyfun21 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, I have enjoyed our conversation, and thanks for bringing the illustrated Denys pedigree to my notice, which I was entirely ignorant of. I admire your dogged adherence to your gut instinct about those arms, be sure to let me know if you do ever get an opinion from the College of Arms. Best wishes, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lobsterthermidor! I can certainly get dogged. :D For your records, here is the link to the Denis and Stradling pedigrees from the Golden Grove Book of Pedigrees that I accessed yesterday. (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1J67VIfhPiH1FyuaIb3CgxuC_w8Q3SXPf?usp=sharing). Also, I hope you'll continue your research and work, the detail it provides is an invaluable resource. Take care and best wishes! Andrew [[User:Historyfun21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyfun21 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those pages, much appreciated. All the best to you. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobsterthermidor, I hope you’ve been well! I revisited the Denys pedigree and upon closer examination of it, I believe that the 4th quarter of Sir Walter’s arms does not contain a chevron and (from what I could tell) contains the Denys arms (see the new Sir Walter Denys and Sir Walter Denys 2 images in the previously shared Denys pedigree folder), which is consistent with his son’s and grandson’s 4th quarter (along with the fact that the chevron between the three roses does not appear in any subsequent Denys arms). In this case, I wonder if the designer of the monumental brass took liberty and quartered the arms of Sir Walter’s mother, even though she was not a heraldic heiress. I came across a similar case in one of your other Denys files https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DenysArms_SuttonPlace_Surrey.png. This still doesn’t explain the Stradling arms variation, but it also doesn’t necessarily preclude Sir Walter’s mother from being Sir Edward’s daughter (i.e. which would have been impossible if she was a true heraldic heiress).

Also, in case it’d be of interest to you, I came across the scans of Bartrum’s Stradling pedigrees: I’ve added them to the old Golden Grove Book of Pedigrees folder that I shared with you previously.

Lastly, thanks to your description of the Danvers arms (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arms_DanversOfCulworth_TwentyQuarterings.png), I was able to identify most of the arms present in Sir Thomas Stradling’s coat of arms: 1. Stradling 2. Hawey 3. Strongbow 4. Gernon or Garnon 5. Not identified 6. Justyn 7. Turberville 8. Berkerolles

(https://museum.wales/collections/online/object/95669d86-7fe8-3762-a422-f55d267e97ce/Thomas-d1480-and-Elizabeth-d1533-Stradlinge/?field0=string&value0=stradling&field1=with_images&value1=1&index=3) It would seem that the St. Barbe arms are missing – could #5 be a variation of them? This is simply curiosity on my part. Thanks and have a great day! Andrew Historyfun21 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Andrew, thanks for the new images, I would definitely agree with you that your image "SirWalterDennis.jpg" in the Denys pedigree folder does not contain a chevron but rather a bend and the Denys arms. I re-visited the image File:Arms DanversOfCulworth TwentyQuarterings.png you mentioned and noticed the comment there (presumably from MacNamara) "No. 4. Stradling. — These were the arms most commonly used by Stradling, but members of the family also used a chevron instead of the bend — see p. 248, and Burke's Armorial, ' Stradling.'". Sadly he gives no further evidence. As for the the St Barbe arms, it seems that they are indeed intended in the 5th quarter on the shield of Sir Thomas Stradling as Sable, a cross quarterly pierced argent, which seems to be a simplified rendering of Chequy argent and sable - which one is correct I don't know. They are shown similarly painted on a shield on the cornice of the painted chamber in St Donat's Castle and very helpfully "St Barbe" is inscribed underneath - see File:In English Homes Vol 2 St Donats Castle Glamorgan painted chamber 31295007279283 0065.jpg (above right). Regards, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobsterthermidor, again, your subject matter knowledge is incredible. I asked you about an obscure 16th century quartering variation and you were able to point out a photo with that exact coat of arms (with an identifying inscription to boot). I believe that you’re right since “"Sir Edward Stradling Knt his son succeeded him who because he was sole heir general to the said Barbe did quarter S Barbe's arms with his To whom also in the thirteenth year of of King Henry the Fourth fell the whole inheritance of the Berkerolles and the right of the fourth part of Turbervile's inheritance.” Cross quarterly pierced argent could have been an earlier variation of the St Barbe arms that was different from those adopted by the first St Barbe Baronet (created 1662).

I was glad to hear that we agree that it is a bend rather than a chevron and thus it appears to be the Denys arms in the 4th quarter of Sir Walter’s arms. Even though Jehanna Stradlyng may have not been a heraldic heiress, the commissioner of the monumental brass thought that her arms were prestigious enough to replace the Ferre arms. We still don’t know why the Stradling arms are represented as this variant in the Denys pedigree and unfortunately the information about the other Stradling arms is very scant: Burke’s armorial is pretty laconic on the subject “Stradling (Wales) Paly of six ar. and sa. on a chev. gu three cinquefoil or”

In the Memorials of the Danvers Family (pg. 248), it says "Amongst the Glamorganshire deeds is one dated 1452 (Clark, vol. ii., p. 169), a grant of land in Coyty by Edmund Stradling; a note to the deed states that Edmund was son of Sir Edmund, of Winter bourne Dauntesey, son of Sir John Stradling and Joan Dauntesey. The seal attached to the deed quarters 1 and 4 paly of six, a chevron (Stradling), 2 and 3, three bars undy for Dauntesey...The Stradlings seem to have used two coats — the above, but more commonly paly of six on a bend three cinquefoils." The original source for the information about the seal is in this book: https://books.google.ca/books?id=OOUuAAAAMAAJ&pg=170

However, Edmund's granddaughter, Anne Stradling/Danvers has the more common Stradling arms displayed on her monumental brass (https://archive.org/details/memorialsofdanve00macn/page/n336/mode/1up).

It also got me thinking about examining seals of Sir Edward Stradling, but I wasn’t able to find any examples in the book linked just above. Since through the influence of his father-in-law he was appointed to some positions in Somerset, I wonder if this book might have an example of his seal: https://books.google.ca/books?newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&id=Rd5AAAAAYAAJ&dq=seal+of+%22sir+william+stradling%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=seal+of+stradling)

Lastly, as I was searching for something else just now, I accidently found the Stradling website that you mentioned earlier! What do you make to of this statement? “All of these are typical heraldic ‘differences’ born by close members of the same family, whether legitimate or illegitimate. In all normal situations the different mark(s) to be born by a ‘nephew’, if Stradling was such, would have to be more than another change of charges on the bend to “three gold cinquefoils”. One would expect, for example, that the bend would be changed to a chevron, thus retaining the original tinctures. Another common method was to add a border around the original coat of arms.” https://web.archive.org/web/20110221031925/http://www.stradling.org.uk/docs/Arms.htm

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to find any Stradling coat of arms with a chevron in Dictionary of British Arms Medieval Ordinary.

All the best! Historyfun21 (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, thanks for your very kind comments, I'm glad you've found my contributions useful, I first saw that image of the St Barbe arms in the painted chamber on 21 Oct, as a result of our earlier conversation, so you have spurred me on to greater knowledge, thanks! I think you are definitely on to something with the chevron Stradling arms - the image on the seal seems like an impeccable source. Good to know that you found the Stradling website, it's very useful. As for the differences, your quotation seems accurate, one of the most famous set of differences were used by the Beauchamp family, which varied the charges between crosses crosslet, billets and martlets for different branches of the family. See Category:Beauchamp arms. Changing an w:Ordinary (heraldry) i.e. a bend for a chevron would seem to be in line with that - although the Beauchamps retained the fess in all versions and just changed the charges. It seems that you had to have founded a substantial new line to merit differenced paternal arms - e.g. married an heiress who brought you a large estate, or acquired wealth in some other way. This needs to be distinguished from differences for bastardy - possibly alluded to by the word "nephew" above - see for example the arms of the Beaufort family, legitimised issue of John of Gaunt, who bore the royal arms with a bordure for difference. Best wishes, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobsterthermidor! I really appreciated your time, insight and that you sought out new sources as the result of our conversation. I will continue sharing what I discover, even if we may hit proverbial brick wall soon. I think connecting the arms in question to the Stradlings may give us some more clues, but the available information is pretty limited in that regard and the Stradling pedigrees appear to be somewhat incomplete for earlier generations. The Stradling website is indeed fantastic- it's also got lists of relevant excerpts from primary sources. To me, the quote from the Stradling website sounds like it was an answer to a specific questions, I wonder what it was since it specifically mentions the changing of a bend to a chevron. Thank you for elaborating the charges and differencing of arms, I didn't know that "you had to have founded a substantial new line to merit differenced paternal arms - e.g. married an heiress who brought you a large estate, or acquired wealth in some other way", I think that's worth exploring further in this matter. BTW, after you described the St Barbe arms as "cross quarterly pierced," I recognized them today in the Golden Grove Book of Pedigrees - the description was there all along! :) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uiD1Xy479kfHk59PhR34Sg-lGLjBisK-/view?usp=sharing Take care! (Historyfun21 (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Andrew, you are very welcome, I first got interested in this area about 10 years ago and have not re-visited it in a major way since then, so it's nice to have an excuse to refresh my memory on the Stradlings. Please don't take my word as gospel on differenced paternal arms, that was just my observation from having noticed such things in practice - what I mean to say is that I have never come across say a younger son who became a parish priest who had his own differenced arms, with a new design, although he would have used one of the standard cadency marks. As for the varying blazons of the St Barbe arms, there is yet another one in Burke's General Armory: Paly of eight sable and argent per fess counterchanged which again is a visual approximation to Chequy argent and sable. Best wishes, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobsterthermidor, I am glad to hear that our conversation caused you to revisit something you got interested sometime ago - I certainly enjoy doing so when an opportunity presents itself. I appreciated the "disclaimer," but I think since you work with heraldry on regular basis, your observations are very valuable. Would you know if the same herald would be responsible for Glamorganshire and Gloucestershire in the 1500s? Would the families "register" with the College their differenced arms or marks of cadence in the 1400s? I am sure that would have helped prevent disputes like Warbelton v Gorges. Thanks for the information about another St Barbe arms variation - I always wondered about the practicalities of certain coat of arms for "mass production", like having to paint/sew only three fleur-de-lis instead of semy-de-lis.

Btw, did you know that the children of William Lygon and Eleanor Dennis have five descents from Edward I (two from Anne Beauchamp and three from Anne Berkeley)? I decided to explore some of the associated arms and was delighted to find the Mowbray, Berkeley, Beauchamp of Powick and Lygon ones to be your work. Thank you again for all your contributions, they are certainly beneficial! I did notice one thing though: have you ever come across Lygon arms quartered with those of Baron Beauchamp of Powick? The Lygon-Denys chest tomb in Fairford Church has only the two Lygon lian passant impaled with the Dennys quartered arms, but the Visitation of Worcester mentions Beauchamp and Usflete arms quarterings in the Lygon arms. https://archive.org/details/visitationcount01mundgoog/page/n107/mode/1up This is just curiosity on my part, I don't think it has any significance. All the best! Historyfun21 (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Andrew, thanks for the kind comments, very much appreciated. I haven't seen any images of Lygon quartering Beauchamp of Powick, but the 15 quarterings you linked to suggest that the heralds saw such a shield somewhere. As a written blazon from such a good source is pretty much as good as seeing the actual shield, there's no reason why they can't be brought back to life in a recreated image - as I did for the Denys quarterings given in the Heraldic Visitation. Not sure I would want to take that on at the moment though. Would you believe it there was someone here on wikipedia (User:TilmannR, he deserves a shout-out) who reproduced the Stowe Armorial - all 719 quarters File:Stowe Armorial.svg - so someone might do it one day. All the best, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! For sure, I don't think there is any urgent need to recreate every possible quartering variation held by different family members, although I certainly found them very helpful when researching specific people. I have some new information to share with you: as mentioned previously, I searched (without any success) the Dictionary of British Arms for Stradling arms variations; what I looked up in this book today was chevron between three roses - the Olveston Denys monumental brass is included under this heading, but the arms in question are identified as Russell??? Not sure how that fits in with Jehanne Stradlyng holding those arms in the Denys pedigree. pg. 342 https://library.oapen.org/viewer/web/viewer.html?file=/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/31215/634734.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. The source for the information about the Olveston monumental brass is listed as: https://archive.org/details/b29828302/page/154/mode/1up, which in turn cites this book: https://archive.org/details/brassesofglouces00davi/page/106/mode/1up Neither of these books identify the arms as Russell, so I am not sure how the statement on pg. 342 could be corroborated, but I would imagine it to be credible since the Dictionary of British Arms was prepared on the basis of index cards from the College of Arms and edited by heralds. Russell holders of these arms are found on pg. 343, with the source for the arms of Thomas Russell being Thomas Jenyns's Book, 1410, transcr. O.Barron, [incorporates Jenyns's Ordinary & Jenyns's Roll, collated with BL Add MS 40851] (pg. xxxix) Have a great day! Historyfun21 (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I admire your determination to solve the problem, I would guess you are now pretty close to meeting the heraldic brick wall. But you have come up with some good discoveries so far, so I may be wrong. Best wishes and thanks for keeping me up to date! Very interesting. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobsterthermidor, I appreciate you saying that, but we wouldn't have discovered much with your knowledge and help - thank you again! I don't think I can take it much further past the current brick wall, but I might reach out to the College of Arms at some point next year: I'll be sure to keep you posted. In the meantime, wishing you a very Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! All the best, Andrew. Historyfun21 (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, Thanks, and Christmas Greetings to you too, I'll "watch this space". Regards,Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving categories[edit]

Hi Lobsterthermidor, please move categories correctly, do not copy them. This breaks the links to Wikidata and the other projects and cuts off the history of a category. See COM:CATMOVE#Rename process for instructions. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info, I didn't know that.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No source[edit]

There are still a thousand images with No Source tag in error! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_without_a_source_as_of_14_October_2021 I took off a few by hand but I am sure someone knows how to take them all off at same time. I am sorry, I have to do work stuff today, can you follow up on this for me?? Best wishes! Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There were only 89 in that category you mentioned when I looked, one of the few relating to heraldry (hawk's lure) does indeed have no source listed, looks like the image was cropped from some published work. Fair candidate for deletion, sadly. I tried to find out where it came from, without success. I was really only concerned about Rs-nourse's self-generated images (which all had source properly declared) - are any of those (or other valid heraldry images) still listed for deletion? Have I missed something? Thanks for your help, let's not give up, we've proved that the wikimedia machine can be reasoned with. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked a few people to try to save as many of those as we could. Others, of course, are beyond saving. Thanks!! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Interior of St Benedict, Scrivelsby - geograph.org.uk - 582817.jpg[edit]

Hello! I don't think that your overwriting of File:Interior of St Benedict, Scrivelsby - geograph.org.uk - 582817.jpg with an inverted version was within the "minor improvements" allowed by COM:OVERWRITE, since it makes a fairly straightforward picture of the interior of a church into a picture that shows the furniture upside-down in order to better show the brass. I've uploaded an inverted version under a new name: File:Interior of St Benedict, Scrivelsby - geograph.org.uk - 582817 (inverted).jpg, so you can use that instead. Note that I rotated this version rather the reflecting it, so as to keep the arms and the text the right way around. If, despite your upload comment, you actually intended to upload a reflected version then I won't object if you overwrite the new one: I think "inverted" in the filename could mean either. --bjh21 (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, that's a great improvement and I forgot the effect of reflection on the correct view of the shield! We have now reached the goal I intended - that the heraldry can be viewed without breaking one's neck. Thanks.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:HeatonCastle Cornhill-on-Tweed Northumberland.png[edit]

File:HeatonCastle Cornhill-on-Tweed Northumberland.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Richard Nevell (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gould, Hockmore and Michell Arms[edit]

Hi Lobsterthermidor, we meet again. :) I don't have any new updates in regard to the Dennis-Stradling arms question, but coincidentally I recently discovered that my fiancé is definitely descended from the Stradlings through the Popham-Michell-Hockmore-Gould-Butson marriages. It's funny how out of all the medieval families, I arrived back to the Stradlings through another route. I was delighted to find the Stradling, Popham, Hockmore and Gould arms that you've created (plus the photo of Pophham arms impaling Stradling arms) - it appears that our interests seem to intersect once again. I've spent sometime researching and verifying the Michell, Hockmore and Gould pedigrees, please don't hesitate to let me know if there is anything that I could share with you about them. I also decided to have some fun and add a page of armorials to my research document - could I ask you to take a quick look at the draft arms that I created using GIMP for Gould of Sharpham Park and Michell of Cannington? If that's ok, what format should I share it in? No pressure whatsoever and this isn't urgent at all. Historyfun21 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew, that sounds interesting, I haven't come across that particular line in my wanderings as yet, but I'll definitely take up your offer if I do. Please provide a link for your images. The best format is svg (i.e using Inkscape), but failing that png is probably second best. I sometimes upload GIMP images (it was a free online package which was appealing) but wiki commons adds the following message to those uploads. Regards,Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image was created with GIMP.

Warning: XCF files must be compatible with GIMP 2.8 in order to be displayed. Files created with GIMP 2.10 format currently are not supported by the MediaWiki software (see T196054). Furthermore, indexed images are not supported and must be converted to RGB or grayscale.

Thank you for the quick response, it was much appreciated! I shared my research with the soc.genealogy.medieval group to confirm it, here is the link to my original post with the details about that particular line: https://groups.google.com/g/soc.genealogy.medieval/c/VI9Xcot0EbI/m/7oSNWU1aAwAJ. Wow, I should have asked you first before playing around with GIMP - Inkspace is so much easier to use and the resulting images look much better. I re-did the two coat of arms with Inkspace using only the svg images found on wikicommons, with the exception of this scroll here (http://heraldicart.org/scroll/). Michell arms description: Gules, a chevron between three swans argent (https://books.google.ca/books?id=paXRXTR6SXAC&pg=PA124#v=onepage&q&f=false) ; Gould of Sharphan Park arms description: Az., a lion rampant or between three scrolls arg. (https://books.google.ca/books?id=husyAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA223#v=onepage&q&f=false), with a drawing of these arms found here (https://archive.org/details/wellscathedralit00jewerich/page/194/mode/1up). I want to ensure that I recreated both arms accurately based on the sources above, please feel free to re-size, re-position, replace as you see fit. If you think there is value of uploading them to Wikmedia Commons, we can do that too. Here is the link to the SVG files, many thanks in advance! https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-SOHS668Raefw3rwgBcV0NrVs1qgJaP8?usp=sharing

Sorry but I can't seem to access those files in drive.google.com, I just get a page of code. I'm a total technophobe and not familiar with google drive, which I tried to download, without success. I did manage to access your previous images of the Denys pedigree, probably more by luck than anything else, but this has stumped me. Can you upload them to wikipedia commons? It's OK if they're not perfect, and as in svg, they can be amended if anything is obviously wrong. Else if you could explain to me how to access the google drive files, that would be helpful. Regards, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again and no rush whatsoever! Apologies, I didn't mean to take up of more of your time with a technical issue. I think if you hover the mouse over the file, a little download icon should pop up in the file's top left corner to save it on your computer for further editing - not sure why they had to hide it unless your pointer is right over it. I also uploaded both images to my talk page (and I think, accidently, to Wikicommons). Actually, let me see if I can add them to this post instead: (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gould_of_Sharpham_Park_Arms.svg / https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michell_of_Cannington_Arms.svg). Wow, you create all of these beautiful digital arms (artworks, really) with Inkspace and manage them on a digital Wikicommons platform - it certainly sets a very high bar for becoming a technophobe. :) It took me sometime to figure to how even sign my posts, which reminds me Historyfun21 (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Andrew, thanks very much for the wiki commons uploads, much easier - I tried your suggestion but got the message "To download this file try enabling third party cookies for drive", which is gobbledygook to me, never mind. I think your images are excellent, entirely in agreement with the blazons you quote, and a great addition to the wiki commons heraldry project. Very helpful file names too. It would be ideal if you could add (under "Description") your source for the blazon, and some indication of where these places are, i.e. county (Somerset I think) - not a wikicommons rule by any means, but it just helps people like you and me who are interested in such things. I found the Gould blazon as quoted in Burke's General Armory (p.415) but no doubt you have your own reliable source. For "Michell of Cannington, Somerset" Burke, p.683, gives a field Per chevron sable and gules whilst yours is just gules (full blazon: Per chevron sable and gules, a chevron between three swans argent) - but that's fine, I have found it very common to find minor variations in different sources. As for the technical issue of licensing, that's for the wikicommons cops, way above my pay grade, but I suspect you might have to declare where you found the constituent images (just say under "Source": "swans amended from File:Swans.svg by User:Artist" and amend your license to "cc-by-sa-3.0"). Would you like me to add your images to the relevant family categories ? - a category for Gould already exists (Category:Gould arms), but one for Michell will have to be created. Regards, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobsterthermidor, thank you so much for taking a look at these two coat of arms - they'd be my first creation/upload. I am happy to collaborate to make sure they are added correctly (with sources, categories, etc.), but first I'd like to determine the correct tinctures for the Michell arms since I also came across this variation (I really appreciated you researching it btw). According to this website, it's the same as the one that I created: http://www.devon-mitchells.co.uk/getperson.php?personID=I102&tree=CanningtonMichells However, his grandson, whose arms I'd like to recreate, has these arms http://www.devon-mitchells.co.uk/getperson.php?personID=I130&tree=CanningtonMichells. There is also this article discussing Michell arms (on the first page and on pg. 85) https://sanhs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/17-G-B-Michell.pdf . Since I am interested the arms of the Michell heiress who married William Hockmore, could I trouble you take a look at her husband's and son's arms on their memorial tablets? I think you have to click on the photo and then on View Original to get the best resolution. I'd be curious to get your fresh perspective the tinctures (if any, given their condition). https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/186655848/william-hockmore and https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/186655845/gregory-hockmore As always, many thanks for your help with these obscure heraldic questions that I seem to be drawn to. :) Historyfun21 (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC) PS: The source for Sir Bartholomew's arms as per the Devon-Mitchells website is Risdon's Notebook, although the description for them there begins with Per Fess (https://archive.org/details/notebookoftristr00risdrich/page/277/mode/1up) Historyfun21 (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I came across this mural monument for Sir Bartholomew Michell's sister - thank you for uploading a photo of it, again, I find your work to be a very valuable resources when researching. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AyshfordMonument1610Burlescombe.jpg The tincture of Michell arms in it is per chevron gules and sable, which aligns with the tinctures as per Risdon's Notebook. The only wrinkle is that the tincture on Gregory Hockmore's memorial tablet appears to per chevron sable and gules, which is the same as in Burke's Armorial that you mentioned. However, given the condition of the tablet, it's hard to say with certainty what were the original colours. I could create and upload these two arms variations, but I am not 100% to whom exactly they belong. All the best! Historyfun21 (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew, very interesting topic, this is a common problem with the arms of many families and I've found that you just have to decide for yourself which is the most justifiable version, based on all the surviving evidence. Right now you are probably the world-leading expert on this question (seriously) so it's up to you to argue the case - you have all the sources and all the arguments at your disposal and have invested the time - have fun! Clearly the sources you quote above have a hierarchy of credibility - so the website devon-mitchells.co.uk on its own is not very authoritative, apart from the sources it quotes. As for church monuments, anything other than stained glass and enamelled brasses are liable to meet with the hand of the restorer, possibly on repeated occasions a century or so apart, so the paint scheme selected is possibly more a result of him consulting a blazon in one of the standard heraldic sources than of him examining any flakes of ancient paint surviving.

What I would do, if I really wanted to do the ultimate job on this topic, is to upload all three versions, with three differing fields (not a lot of work on Inkscape once you have the basic shield drawn), and in the file description state the sources for that particular version - and note the existence of alternate blazons if you wish, providing a link to the other two images. That is really an admission that we will never know what the "true" version was, unless more reliable sources emerge. There's nothing stopping you from selecting your own favoured version, based on your own informed gut-feeling, and promoting that a bit more than the other two. It's possible that the grandson you mention above bore a differenced version of his paternal arms, hence the different field, but I doubt it, differences were usually only created by the very top families of the nobility - i.e Beauchamps, Nevilles, etc.

w:Tristram Risdon as you probably know was himself a member of the Devon gentry, so prima facie he should be a credible source on such matters, and I checked in one of my favourite sources on Devonshire matters Pole, Sir William (d.1635), Collections Towards a Description of the County of Devon, Sir John-William de la Pole (ed.), London, 1791, who on p.493 gives the arms of "Michell of Taleton" as Per fesse gules and sable, a chiveron betwixt 3 swans argent (sic). That's the one I would probably go with, but I'm a big fan of Pole's work.

By the way you are also becoming an expert on my back-catalogue, lol, thanks for pointing out that old photo of mine at Burlescombe, there are some interesting arms in there which can now be categorised which I had forgotten about. The paintwork certainly looks restored and not original. I couldn't see the tinctures clearly enough in the other photos you mentioned, but if you do upload some images, please quote those monuments and their locations, with links - maybe one day someone will take a good photo of the shields. Burlescombe isn't too far from me, so now that my photographic skills have improved considerably since 2012 I might have another go if I am in the area. Best wishes, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening! Thank you very much for the detailed reply and looking into it, it was much appreciated. If the Michells of Cannington only knew that the fate of their arms is in my hands... :) I have to admit, it is very satisfying to research/discover something that hasn't been connected before and I find that when I find a photo of what I need, usua;;y it's your work. I'd probably be stuck a bunch of times without your contributions, especially since not a lot of other users are contributing to those specific areas. That's very interesting/reassuring about Sir William Pole description, especially since he was Sir Bartholomew Michell's first cousin. I wonder what the Michell connection to Taleton was though. That's a good point, I haven't considered that memorials may not have accurate tinctures since they are subject to the restorers' preferences/interpretations. Given Risdon's and Pole's descriptions, as well as the arms on Elizabeth Popham/Ayshford tomb I think I'll settle on gules and sable tincture. Sounds good though, I'll upload all three sometime next week. I just have two quick questions: the svg template that I was working off has a reflection layer, but it seems to make the colour white look greyish. Is it preferred to have this layer for digital coat of arms? Also, both Risdon and Pole begin their descriptions with Per fess, but my understanding is that there is only a chevron and no actual fess - what does it mean in this context? I think you're very fortunate to live in such a fascinating area. I plan to revisit England at some point in the future and would enjoy seeing, among other things, the places associated with my fiancé's and daughter's ancestors. :) Have a great weekend! Historyfun21 (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lobsterthermidor, hope all is well! I've added the the new variant of the Michell arms https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Michell_Arms and added descriptions, sources and categories to them as well as Gould Arms. In regard to the Michell arms, I stumbled across this while researching something else: https://www.google.ca/books/edition/The_Middle_Temple_Bench_Book/husyAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=richard+michell+middle+temple&pg=PA418&printsec=frontcover. That would make three of Richard Michell's children using the "per fess gules and sable, a chevron chevron between three swans argent" (Sir Bartholomew Michell as per Risdon's notebook, Elizabeth Michell/Ayshford and Tristram Michell referenced in the link above) - unless I am misunderstanding fess in this context and the arms that I uploaded are missing it. All the best! Historyfun21 (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cantons_charged_with_ships[edit]

Category:Cantons_charged_with_ships has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Heraldrist (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monuments_in_Westminster_Abbey[edit]

Monuments in Westminster Abbey has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Labattblueboy (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Augmentation of honour (1537) Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex.svg[edit]

There are some issues with File:Augmentation of honour (1537) Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex.svg and your correction to File:Thomas Cromwell, Coat of Arms, 1537.png that need clarification. The arms of Thomas Cromwell with the augmentation of honour granted to him in 1537 on his son's marriage to Elizabeth Seymour, appear on the back of a portrait medal made for him in 1538, File:Thomas Cromwell medal, 1538 side 2.png and in an heraldic "Parliamentary Roll" of 1539/40 (neatly crossed out on his attainder). Illustrations of both appear in MacCulloch, D. (2018). Thomas Cromwell: a life, pp. 427–8, plates 7 and 8. See also note 21 on p. 679 for the full heraldic description: quarterly, 1st and 4th: azure, on a fess between three lions rampant or, a rose gules, between two Cornish choughs proper; 2nd and 3rd, per fess azure and or, a pale counter-changed, charged alternately with fleurs de lys of the second, and pelicans with wings elevated vulning themselves gules. The blazon appears to be misleading but the colour image of the arms (plate 8) was the reference for File:Thomas Cromwell, Coat of Arms, 1537.png and it is the right one. Note the position of the wings on the pelicans on the medal. The blazon is also given in Merriman, R.B. (1902). The Life and letters of Thomas Cromwell. Vol. II, p. 284.

Thanks for all you do. Keep up the good work! Ammelida (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your engagement, appreciation and attention to detail! My new image File:Augmentation of honour (1537) Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex.svg follows the blazon given in both MacCulloch and Merriman quoted by you above, the field being Party per fess azure and or not Party per fess or and azure, as shown in File:Thomas Cromwell, Coat of Arms, 1537.png. I did study all the images already in this cat before producing my new image, including the medal - thanks to whoever uploaded them, very useful. You state effectively that the right one is Party per fess or and azure - do you have any source for that? I tend to think a written blazon is more authoritative than something like "plate 8" which I assume is a modern image? If it is a photo of something ancient, that would be useful. Not trying to be difficult at all, it's just a question of getting to the truth, not always easy! The fleur-de-lys clearly comes from the 1st & 4th quarters of the royal arms of Henry VIII, the royal arms of France, which have field azure with fleur-de-lys or. However, the augmentation he granted to Jane Seymour have these tinctures reversed Category:Marriage augmentation arms of Queen Jane Seymour.

As for the form of the wings, I do agree that on the medal they are shown close not elevated - but the standard heraldic form of the pelican vulning does seem to be with wings elevated, and the blazon in Merriman states wings elevated. So do we assume that the medal deliberately contravenes this convention, or that the sculptor was just a bit sloppy in showing them close? Perhaps there is no "answer" to these questions, thus it is useful to show all credible possibilities, and let the viewer ponder the question for himself. I have found that even with such important and long-established arms as those of the See of Bath and Wells, there is no clear form regarding the tincture of the saltire, it is shown in two ways on monuments of bishops themselves Category:Coats of arms of See of Bath and Wells.

Anyway, it's very helpful when people like you raise such issues for debate, we are getting closer to the truth. Thanks and best wishes Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your detailed comments, your insight and for the compliment (the images were uploaded by me). I can't explain the mystery of the blazon - Cromwell's arms have confounded scholars ever since his unfortunate demise: For example, Blomefield, Francis (1808). Launditch Hundred: Elmham. An Essay Towards a Topographical History of the County of Norfolk. Vol. 9, pp. 486-495.

Plate 8 in Diarmaid MacCulloch's book is a colour photograph of the ancient arms in an heraldic parliamentary roll dating from 1539/40.

Those same arms appear:

1. on the cover of the Great Bible published in 1538-9 which is reproduced in (in colour) in this article: https://theconversation.com/how-thomas-cromwell-used-cut-and-paste-to-insert-himself-into-henry-viiis-great-bible-143765

2. in a stained glass window at the Bodleian Library: https://www.topfoto.co.uk/asset/1102/

3. in the top left corner of a painting of Thomas Cromwell by an unknown artist dated circa 1538-9: https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/Portrait-of-Thomas-Cromwell--c--1485-154/53BD9D6A3BDC6753

The Seymour augmentation File:Marriage augmentation arms of Queen Jane Seymour.svg and the Cromwell augmentation File:Thomas Cromwell, Coat of Arms, 1537.png "possess ‘the same unusual threefold structure, same metal and colours, fleurs de lys, and a feral creature’" (MacCulloch, pp. 427-8)

It can indeed be a struggle to get to the truth! Best wishes Ammelida (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for all those superb sources! I am beginning to suspect that you are somewhat of an expert on this topic... I'm here to learn! I especially like stained glass heraldic sources as they cannot be altered by restorers, cannot fade or flake, so the Bodleian image is very persuasive. One assumes that before the artist started on his costly work of many hours he made sure that the image he was reproducing was correct. I enjoyed reading the article on the Great Bible, what a great story and interpretation.

Thank you very much for putting me right on this topic. I am more than willing to produce another version of my image (or probably to supersede it, I am becoming more convinced) showing the arms as in the Bodleian stained glass, with field Party per fess or and gules and with wings close not elevated, and to state the Bodleian stained glass and the medal as sources. If you could upload Plate 8 in Diarmaid MacCulloch's book, that would probably seal the deal as far as good sources go. The correct blazon for that image would seem to be Party per fess or and gules, a pale counterchanged all charged alternately with six fleurs de lys azure and pelicans with wings close vulning themselves of the first, 3 and 3. The "six" and last "3 and 3" added as the blazons I have seen do not specify numbers, which I think they should. Also it probably should clarify that not just the pale is charged, but the whole shield, hence I have added "all charged".

In the portrait image and the Great Bible it's not easy to distinguish the tinctures (PS already a good image (different edition seemingly) on wikicommons File:Great Bible of 1539 Frontispiece - St John's College Bb.8.30.jpg), but if you want to tell me what you think they are I would like to upload them to wikicommons, as further examples, together with the Bodleian stained glass. The mystery then becomes: where did all the erroneous written blazons come from? Quoted from ancient written sources or just modern attempts at blazonry by people looking at correct images but not fully competent in transferring image to heraldic description? Best wishes and thanks for the very interesting discussion.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, also a rare image of the quartered arms of Thomas Cranmer there! That too will find its way onto wikicommons.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for uploading the stained glass and the Great Bible detail. It would be helpful to have another image of Cromwell's augmentation to compare with that of Edward Seymour. I look forward to your heraldic creations.

Two presentation copies of the Great Bible were made (overseen by Thomas Cromwell):

One for Henry VIII: File:Great Bible 1539.jpg, described at https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/the-great-bible-probably-henry-viiis-own-copy

Cromwell's personal copy, now at St John's College, Cambridge: File:Great Bible of 1539 Frontispiece - St John's College Bb.8.30.jpg

Plate 8 in Diarmaid MacCulloch's book is taken from a manuscript at the College of Arms: The arms of Cromwell as augmented in 1537, College of Arms, MS Num Sch 6/40. Presumably the blazon originates there. I am unable to upload the image as it is subject to copyright - that was the reason for this one: File:Thomas Cromwell, Coat of Arms, 1537.png

In any case we have enough with the Great Bible frontispiece, the medal (both commissioned by Thomas Cromwell) and the stained glass.

Ps. Diarmaid MacCulloch spent 10 years researching and writing his biography of Thomas Cromwell. He is a meticulous scholar and has consulted with experts in their fields.

All the best, and many thanks for an enjoyable and informative discussion! Ammelida (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure to have worked with you! I have now uploaded an amended image of the arms at File:Augmentation of honour (1537) Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex.svg, hopefully now correct. Thanks again for having put this right. If you are happy with my revised written blazon, we should probably use it to replace the erroneous ones in the various file descriptions.

You won't be contravening any wikicommons rules by uploading a faithful reproduction of an ancient image where the original author died over 100 years ago, wikicommons takes the view that it is not possible to claim copyright over such an item, unless a derivative image altered in some way. Just select the licence "Public domain: Author died over 100 years ago", if you would like to upload plate 8.

Whilst on the topic, the 1st & 4th quarterings of Cromwell's arms also seem to be an augmentation, is that correct and if so, which augmentation was granted first? Should we perhaps call the two coats "First augmentation" and "Second augmentation"? I have copied our discussion to the talk page at Category talk:Augmented arms of Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex. All the best Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your new version of the augmentation looks great, although when I click on the image, it reverts to the old version. Are you able to fix this?

1st & 4th quarterings: Thomas Cromwell was granted his first coat of arms in 1532. Those arms were a nod to his former master, Thomas Wolsey: see File:Christ Church Oxford Coat Of Arms.svg where you will notice Cromwell has taken Wolsey's chief and made it his fess.

There was only one augmentation granted to Cromwell, that of 1537, on his son's marriage to Elizabeth Seymour, a younger sister of Queen Jane. (As an aside: note the six fleurs-de-lis on the left sleeve in the portrait now thought to depict Gregory Cromwell's wife.)

As for the blazon, perhaps we should keep the traditional blazon and provide your alternative as well.

Thanks so much for taking the time to sort all this out and for creating the new versions. Best wishes, Ammelida (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the old images take a while to "disappear" from the system, sometimes hitting the "purge" button helps (more>purge), I am seeing the same thing. I thought I recognised that fess! Thanks for the info, fascinating. I suspect Wolsey's chief is itself an augmentation, there are several similar added chiefs with three disparate charges borne by Tudor royal officials, for example Category:Petre arms, where the "Cornish chough" also features. Additions to the paternal arms. But wasn't he supposed to have been the "son of a butcher"? - so possibly no paternal arms to augment. Maybe he was granted the arms with the cross argent first, then a chief was added later, as a further honour. I would guess that rather than having "taken" it, he was "granted" it, as a great honour. "Taking" another person's arms could lead to trouble, no matter that a compliment was intended!

This type of chief seems to have been the personal style of one herald who designed them all. I would love to identify which one and to solve the mystery of what was signified by the "Cornish chough". Possibly a reference to the Category:Attributed arms of Thomas Becket?

I'm not sure I can live with that erroneous blazon! (unless heavily caveated and explained). How "traditional" is it? It's just plain misleading, and got me into a big mess, as we both know! I would be happy to give the corrected blazon and add in brackets ("given erroneously by ..... as ....."). Would that be OK with you? Best wishesLobsterthermidor (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, one further point of interest, the Bodleian stained glass actually shows the birds in the distinctive form of martlets not choughs, but no doubt we can assume that is an error, due to the origin of the fess as discussed above. On the medal they are not shown as martlets, without the distinctive martlet feet. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Augmentation of honour (1537) Thomas Cromwell, 1st Earl of Essex.svg still reverts to the old version after a null edit and a purge. Any ideas?

Cardinal Thomas Wolsey (d. 1530) (who was the son of a butcher) was granted his arms on 4 August 1525: see Christ Church, Oxford, Coat of arms (Curthoys, Judith (2012). The Cardinal's College: Christ Church, Chapter and Verse. Profile Press. pp. 4–5.); Blazon, Burke, pp. 1128-9; Description, Thomas Wolsey, Arms.

In July 1537, Thomas Cromwell discussed his new coat of arms with Garter King of Arms, Christopher Barker. Wolsey died in 1530, so there was no problem with borrowing from his coat of arms in 1532.

It is interesting about the martlets in the stained glass. Now that you mention it, I have noticed a distinct pattern of bird substitution in heraldry!

As for the blazon: list both in the description.

1. the blazon as per Merriman (vol. II, 284) and MacCulloch (pp. 427-8, n. 21 (p. 679)). No explanation necessary.

2. your alternative, with an explanation.

Best wishes Ammelida (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you are a fount of valuable information! As for the last two points, I would prefer to put them in this order: 1: the blazon which is correct, which describes accurately the correct image we have been discussing; 2: the incorrect blazon, which gets both the tinctures of the field wrong and the form of the wings. Sometimes even the most credible sources make howlers, or careless errors. That's human nature. No insult to the sources to wipe off the few paint splashes from the masterpiece. All the best.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good! Many thanks. Ammelida (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all file descriptions now updated, many thanks and best wishesLobsterthermidor (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gorges_arms[edit]

Gorges arms has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

-sche (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Charges in chief and Category:Chiefs with charges[edit]

Hi Lobsterthermidor, i dont understand, what is the differenc between both? Why are you creating Category:Charges in chief when Category:Chiefs with charges already exists? Your name is better, but why not renaming the latter? Same with Charges in fess and Fesses with charges, and same with bend ... confusing! Regards --W like wiki ^{good to know} 06:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@W like wiki: There is a difference, heraldry is a complex subject, strictly for pedants like me. It can be confusing, but once studied is highly logical, and is a language of exactitude. A "chief with a charge" is a chief on which is depicted an object. A "chief" is a rectangle at the top of the shield. A "charge in chief" does not involve a chief (rectangle at the top), but just means that the charge (object (i.e. lion)) is shown "in chief", meaning at the top of the shield. Similarly, a "charge in fess" is a charge (object (i.e. lion)) placed across the centre of the shield, but not on a fess (a rectangle spanning the centre of the shield) - which would be a "fess charged with ....". Same with bend. Best wishes, Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Berkeley (of Stoke Gifford, Gloucestershire) arms.svg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Berkeley (of Stoke Gifford, Gloucestershire) arms.svg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Berkeley (of Stoke Gifford, Gloucestershire) arms.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 12:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image looks OK to me, states "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license".Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:ArmsOfDenysOfSiston.jpg[edit]

File:ArmsOfDenysOfSiston.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Giltsbeach (talk) 13:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Denys OfGloucestershire Arms.png[edit]

File:Denys OfGloucestershire Arms.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Giltsbeach (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Denys OfSiston Gloucestershire Arms.PNG[edit]

File:Denys OfSiston Gloucestershire Arms.PNG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Giltsbeach (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Roe (of Higham Hall, Walthamstow, Essex) arms.svg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Roe (of Higham Hall, Walthamstow, Essex) arms.svg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Roe (of Higham Hall, Walthamstow, Essex) arms.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 00:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image looks OK to me, states "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license".Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Gaunt (of Beverston, Gloucestershire) arms.svg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Gaunt (of Beverston, Gloucestershire) arms.svg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Gaunt (of Beverston, Gloucestershire) arms.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 12:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image looks OK to me, states "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license".Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sun_in_splendour[edit]

Sun in splendour has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

-sche (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Abbot (of Guildford, Surrey) arms.svg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Abbot (of Guildford, Surrey) arms.svg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Abbot (of Guildford, Surrey) arms.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 18:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Coat of Arms of Duchy of Saxe-Lauenburg (1815-66).svg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Coat of Arms of Duchy of Saxe-Lauenburg (1815-66).svg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Coat of Arms of Duchy of Saxe-Lauenburg (1815-66).svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 14:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:3_castles_in_heraldry[edit]

3 castles in heraldry has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Arms of Louis I, Duke of Anjou.svg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Arms of Louis I, Duke of Anjou.svg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Arms of Louis I, Duke of Anjou.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 14:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Licence now added.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Sforza family.svg[edit]

File:Coat of arms of Sforza family.svg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

MostEpic (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Bugg (of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, Nottinghamshire) arms.svg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Bugg (of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, Nottinghamshire) arms.svg

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Bugg (of Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, Nottinghamshire) arms.svg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

This action was performed automatically by AntiCompositeBot (talk) (FAQ) 16:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Licence now added.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Statant Sable SVG[edit]

Hi Lobsterthermidor, I hope you've been well and enjoying your summer! I've been working on adding Cresswell and Dyott arms to Wikicommons, but upon re-reading the visitation, I noticed what I need is "Or, a tiger statant sable" and I couldn't find the correct version in svg format on Wikicommons or the web. Do you have any suggestions where I could find it or is there an easy way for me to create one using Inkscape? As always, many thanks! Source:The Heraldic Visitations of Staffordshire Made by Sir Richard St. George https://books.google.ca/books?id=gfwcAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA117&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Historyfun21 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, nice to hear from you again, I'm well, thanks. I think you need an "heraldic tiger", which is not the same as the normal big cat, as you probably know. Dyott used as crest "A tiger passant" (per your Visitations link), which in Fairbairn's Book of Crests, is drawn as an heraldic tiger, pictured here[3]. So for the coat of arms itself you need the same animal, but "statant". This seems to be a rare form for tigers, so you will have to use inkscape to trace the more commonly seen "passant" version and move the foreleg down to the ground. (Use the pen tool, not the trace function, which is a bit crude and leaves thick lines which cannot be altered). Here is a nice clear image to trace from [4] but the nose/beak is not clear/prominent enough - maybe use this for the body and use another image to perfect the beak - maybe one drawn by Fox-Davies, in "Complete Heraldry", authoritative versions File:Coa Illustration Elements Animal Tyger Passant.svg - That would be a very useful addition to the Wikimedia inventory. If you want me to explain how to do it in Inkscape, let me know, or you can watch youtube tutorials, probably better. Good luck!Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your quick, detailed and helpful reply! I am away next week, but I'll try to follow your suggestions/learn Inkspace once I am back and have some time. Actually, you sent me down another of our rabbit holes. The visitation says that the tiger is statant, but the note mentions that the arms that were granted to John Dyott were described as or, tiger passant sable, armed and langued gules; however in the Dyott chapel photos it is also collared and chained like in the crest.

https://www.google.ca/books/edition/A_survey_of_Staffordshire_containing_the/P8M9AAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA306&printsec=frontcover

http://www.patrickcomerford.com/2019/09/dyott-memorials-survive-in-dyott-chapel.html

Here it is statant, as it is in the Weston Pedigree (Catherine Weston married John Dyott)

https://www.google.ca/books/edition/A_survey_of_Staffordshire_containing_the/P8M9AAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA306-IA3&printsec=frontcover

I'll have to do some research once I return from our vacation in Eastern Quebec.

Thanks again! Historyfun21 (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Whichever version you opt to draw, I hope you will also upload the portrait of Sir Richard Dyott, and his arms. Always useful to have solid sources/examples to look at. Best wishes.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! After some more digging, it seems to me that tiger passant is the correct version of the Dyott arms, as granted by Dethick to John Dyott in 1562. I was also lucky enough to find a tiger passant sable in another wikicommons arms file: it came up under tiger passant, not heraldic tiger in the search. Might be a good idea to add as stand alone heraldic element for future use. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dyott_of_Stichbrook_and_Lichfield_Arms.svg

As a side note, I was also working on the Cresswell coat of arms and it seemed to me that various branches adopted different tinctures and minor charges with very little documentation available today to confirm what arms were adopted and by whom and when.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cresswell_of_Pinkney_Park_Arms.svg

As always, any feedback from you on my work is very welcome.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

Andrew Historyfun21 (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work! Glad to see you are up and running with Inkscape. Do you know how to add categories? If not I can suggest some categories for your new images.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the positive feedback! I am becoming an expert at copying and pasting in Inkspace. :D I just figured out how to add categories after the upload: please let me know what categories to add to these two arms. All the best! Historyfun21 (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in my reply, I finally got round to adding categories to your images. Great additions, thank you.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copleston Coats of Arms[edit]

Hi Lobersterthermador, I have been collecting Copleston Coats of Arms for many years now, and have been most grateful for your contributions here, as it has led me to places I would never have gone before. I have been taking my own photographs for my own collection and web site www.copleston.net. Happy to share any in future and keep in contact with our shared interest. Is this the best way to contact you? 1PNOE (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, glad you find them useful. Yes, this is the best way to contact me. In retrospect I would say the best "catch" was File:CoplestonArms TamertonFoliotChurch Devon.PNG Shame I didn't take a better photo, as this seems to be the only example of quartered arms, and includes Gorges. I don't think I even used a tripod. It's sadly in need of restoration. I have used your excellent website many times! If you want to upload any images here, that would be most welcome.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Landsberg Bayertor Turm 6.JPG and Category:Coats of arms of Bernabò Visconti[edit]

Why do you think this is the personal Coat of arms of Bernabò Visconti? Without further information I'd think it's just the coat of arms of the family (House of Visconti). So what makes this COA related to one single person? GerritR (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is explained in the file description. w:Frederick, Duke of Bavaria (1339-1393) married secondly in 1381 w:Maddalena Visconti, daughter of Bernabò Visconti and Beatrice Regina della Scala. That is why these arms appear here, on the Turm des Bayertors in Landsberg am Lech, Bavaria, together with the arms of the Dukes of Bavaria. They are the paternal arms of Maddalena Visconti, in other words they are the arms of Bernabò Visconti. The Gothic style of this building fits with that period (14th century). Can you offer any other explanation of why the arms of Visconti would appear in Bavaria together with the arms of Wittelsbach, Duke of Bavaria, at this period? I can think of none. Coats of arms don't appear randomly, there is always a reason, usually dynastic / marriage related. These coats of arms were put there as a message / communication. We are supposed to interpret them, understand the message, that is what the language of heraldry is about. Hope that makes sense. RegardsLobsterthermidor (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. There's nothing attached to this COA which makes it personal. Just the shield with the snake eating a man and that's it. Yes, there is that historical context which is related to this COA and to the building. But Coats of arms related to one single person are usually unique.--GerritR (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Turm des Bayertors in Landsberg am Lech, in the Duchy of Bavaria, was built in 1425, during the rule of w:Henry XVI, Duke of Bavaria, the son of w:Frederick, Duke of Bavaria by his wife w:Maddalena Visconti, a daughter of w:Bernabò Visconti. The tower displays the arms of Visconti in the middle, flanked by two identical coats of arms of the Wittelsbach Dukes of Bavaria, facing each other in w:heraldic courtesy. Placing the arms of Visconti so prominently seems to be intended as a special honour to his mother who died in 1404. The only uncertainty is whether the two flanking arms are those of the builder Henry (as a monument to his mother) or of Henry's late father Frederick, which would make the tower a monument to both his parents. I would opt for the first scenario, but it could be either. It would seem reasonable to add them (if so desired) to the categories for both men. The Visconti arms are however those of Bernabò Visconti, the father of Maddalena. One could say they are her arms but as you will no doubt be aware, females generally do not bear arms in their own right. Hope that is clearer. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1 lion passant on a chief‎[edit]

Hi, you made this category, but in blazon you never read "on a chief". The name of the category should be Category:In chief 1 lion passant. Please correct it. Thank you, – Doc Taxon • Talk • 07:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind: the correct names of heraldry categories are lent from heraldry blazons: Category:2 fish on a fess should correctly be named Category:A fess charged with 2 fish. – Doc Taxon • Talk • 07:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc, no, the two blazons are not the same. A lion in chief can be a lion on a blank shield, it just has to be positioned at the top of the shield. A "lion on a chief" is actually shown on a chief, i.e. on an heraldic ordinary. It is indeed frequently found in blazons. Hope that's clear. As for your second point, I understand what you are saying completely, but for categorisation purposes we should be looking for the clearest, shortest, and easiest to "pop-up" tags, not necessarily following the rules of blazonry. I'm very keen on the rules of blazonry being followed in file descriptions and in Wikipedia, but categorisation is a matter of pure practicality and efficiency. Thus, to classify an image with 2 fish, a user has only to type in "2 fish" and will be offered a wide menu by the auto-complete function. That's very useful. Typing in the full blazon is very time consuming, requires some expertise, and a slight variation in wording may lead down a wrong path.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no, the upper coat of arms shows a lion, I never read lion on a chief anywhere. Yes, category names are no blazonry descriptions, but we usually name the most categories with blazonry parts, and this for many years now. If we want to change this behavior, we should change many category names. This way or the other way, but not both of them. – Doc Taxon • Talk • 13:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc Taxon: Hi Doc, I don't understand you if you are saying the top image does not depict "a lion on a chief", please explain that further. The image is of a chief with a lion on it. You will have an uphill struggle re-naming heraldry cats to conform exactly with the rules of English blazonry. That is possibly a pointless exercise and achieves nothing useful. The primary purpose of categorisation of images on wikimedia is so that they can be both found and categorised efficiently. To that end clearly the less verbose the category name is, and the more intuitive, the better. Papworth, John Woody, Alphabetical Dictionary of Coats of Arms Belonging to Families in Great Britain and Ireland, Vol.I, London, 1874, possibly the most comprehensive categorisation of English heraldry, classifies this depiction as "On a chief .... lion", not a chief charged with a lion. He also uses as a category "Lion between or within". Anyway, a chief charged with a lion is descriptive, not something expected as part of a correct blazon, which would surely be "On a chief (tincture) a lion (tincture)", the words "charged with" are rarely found except in the case of debased and complex heraldry. Moreover, blazons use words not numbers, so according to your suggestion all cats would be renamed "two fish" from "2 fish". One should not have to be an expert in blazonry to categorise heraldry on wikimedia. The user sees 2 fish, so types in "2 fish" and the auto-complete brings up a long list, including "2 fish on a .....", with a choice. Typing in "a chief charged with ..." is not intuitive. I certainly don't want to dumb down heraldic terminology in categorisations, but the insistence on correct heraldic grammar and syntax in categorisation is a step too far, for me at least. We must try to be pragmatic, not purist. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you – Doc Taxon • Talk • 05:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cross_of_Toulouse_in_heraldry[edit]

Cross of Toulouse in heraldry has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]