User talk:NSamson - Revision history

NSamson at 08:32, 5 July 2022

2022-07-05T08:32:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:32, 5 July 2022
Line 18:		Line 18:

	This is a great idea, but personally I don't really think its feasible given the sparse amount of members this wiki has. [[User:Novov\|Novov]] ([[User talk:Novov\|talk]]) 08:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)		This is a great idea, but personally I don't really think its feasible given the sparse amount of members this wiki has. [[User:Novov\|Novov]] ([[User talk:Novov\|talk]]) 08:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

			==Method==
			Export as Plain SVG.
			Open - realign to center and middle

Novov at 08:50, 24 June 2018

2018-06-24T08:50:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:50, 24 June 2018
Line 16:		Line 16:

	If a charge cannot be identified, it should also be categorized as 'Unidentified Charge', even if the other charges could be identified. If another user could identify the charge, the 'Unidentified Charge' category for that specific arms should be deleted and replaced with the proper identification. -[[User:NSamson\|NSamson]] ([[User talk:NSamson\|talk]]) 02:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)		If a charge cannot be identified, it should also be categorized as 'Unidentified Charge', even if the other charges could be identified. If another user could identify the charge, the 'Unidentified Charge' category for that specific arms should be deleted and replaced with the proper identification. -[[User:NSamson\|NSamson]] ([[User talk:NSamson\|talk]]) 02:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

			This is a great idea, but personally I don't really think its feasible given the sparse amount of members this wiki has. [[User:Novov\|Novov]] ([[User talk:Novov\|talk]]) 08:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

NSamson: /* Categorization */

2018-06-24T02:43:35Z

Categorization

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:43, 23 June 2018
Line 8:		Line 8:
	==Categorization==		==Categorization==
	With over 13000 files, I propose that we add categories for each file, so that arms containing the same charge may be grouped properly.		With over 13000 files, I propose that we add categories for each file, so that arms containing the same charge may be grouped properly.

			Also, this is the closest thing I could think of in order to find arms by blazon.

	For example, the Capet arms is categorized as Fleur-de-lys.		For example, the Capet arms is categorized as Fleur-de-lys.

NSamson at 02:28, 24 June 2018

2018-06-24T02:28:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:28, 23 June 2018
Line 5:		Line 5:

	BTW you are right, it is most likely that the arms with three lions is in fact FitzMatthew...I just noticed it appears in Historia Anglorum. Still the colors are reversed. Cheerio. [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 23:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)		BTW you are right, it is most likely that the arms with three lions is in fact FitzMatthew...I just noticed it appears in Historia Anglorum. Still the colors are reversed. Cheerio. [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 23:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

			==Categorization==
			With over 13000 files, I propose that we add categories for each file, so that arms containing the same charge may be grouped properly.

			For example, the Capet arms is categorized as Fleur-de-lys.

			Arms containing more than one charge would have several categories, until each and every charge contained in the arms had been identified.

			If a charge cannot be identified, it should also be categorized as 'Unidentified Charge', even if the other charges could be identified. If another user could identify the charge, the 'Unidentified Charge' category for that specific arms should be deleted and replaced with the proper identification. -[[User:NSamson\|NSamson]] ([[User talk:NSamson\|talk]]) 02:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Finellach at 23:07, 20 June 2016

2016-06-20T23:07:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:07, 20 June 2016
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==Comments==		==Comments==
	[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MP-Liber_Additamentorum-170a.jpg Folio 170a]. The man who made modern illustration has been confirmed as credible source on many occasions. He is behind the sites such as Aspilogia.com and so on. [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 22:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)		[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MP-Liber_Additamentorum-170a.jpg Folio 170a]. The man who made modern illustration has been confirmed as credible source on many occasions. He is behind the sites such as Aspilogia.com and so on. [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 22:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

			BTW you are right, it is most likely that the arms with three lions is in fact FitzMatthew...I just noticed it appears in Historia Anglorum. Still the colors are reversed. Cheerio. [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 23:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Finellach: /* Comments */

2016-06-20T22:24:08Z

Comments

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:24, 20 June 2016
Line 2:		Line 2:

	==Comments==		==Comments==
			[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MP-Liber_Additamentorum-170a.jpg Folio 170a]. The man who made modern illustration has been confirmed as credible source on many occasions. He is behind the sites such as Aspilogia.com and so on. [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 22:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

NSamson: clearing - baton-label, names

2016-05-24T13:29:37Z

clearing - baton-label, names

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:29, 24 May 2016
Line 2:		Line 2:

	==Comments==		==Comments==
	Are you absolutely sure there are no more arms with baton and label above? I just found one more but I have a really strange feeling I missed at least two more out there. The reason why I reverted you. Anyway I rv back with slight modification (reduced lenght by a couple of pixels since they looked like touching almost) and updated the "bonus" one. Can you please check around? Would do it myself but am quite tired today...[[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 19:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


	Why did you change the names and removed South Slavic orthographic letters? Also what you named "Eusebiovic" or whatever is well established to be '''Enzeblovic'''. And second, South Slavic names ending with an ''i'' such as ''Frankopani'' is a plural form of name...equivalent of writing it ''Frankopan's'' in English so it looks weird. There are also two other minor changes to Burmasovic which you renamed to Burmazovic and Dinjic to Diknic. You must understand that what is written in Fojnica (or Neoric armorial) is not an English variant of the name, it is a pre-standardized way of spelling, when certain sounds didn't have separate signs but were formed out of other letters or combinations of them. Also Korenic-Neoric is quite older armorial so if you are looking for a "standard" you should always go with the older source. [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 11:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

	Hmm...that is weird. I'll speak with Joakim about it. My goal was actually to change all South Slavic families to their proper orthographic form eventually...just didn't have to time to do it yet. I mean we already follow the same rule with the French, Hungarian and Scandinavian names who all have their proper diacritic form. I am really busy these days and I hate to start something I couldn't finish in one go... [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 11:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

	Also forgot to say - having non-diacritic variant for the name of the file/CoA itself is just fine, having it for a name on the page is just wrong. They should all be in proper standard native variant...this goes for all names on the site. See my previous argument for French, Scandinavian and Hungarian surnames. And it shouldn't be a problem in any case since we can have non-diacritic variant (f.e. pages of various families) as redirect. So if you have the page called ''House of Šubić'' you would also have a page ''House of Subic'' with a redirect. I don't see the issue. [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 18:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Finellach at 18:14, 11 May 2016

2016-05-11T18:14:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:14, 11 May 2016
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Hmm...that is weird. I'll speak with Joakim about it. My goal was actually to change all South Slavic families to their proper orthographic form eventually...just didn't have to time to do it yet. I mean we already follow the same rule with the French, Hungarian and Scandinavian names who all have their proper diacritic form. I am really busy these days and I hate to start something I couldn't finish in one go... [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 11:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)		Hmm...that is weird. I'll speak with Joakim about it. My goal was actually to change all South Slavic families to their proper orthographic form eventually...just didn't have to time to do it yet. I mean we already follow the same rule with the French, Hungarian and Scandinavian names who all have their proper diacritic form. I am really busy these days and I hate to start something I couldn't finish in one go... [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 11:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

	Also forgot to say - having non-diacritic variant for the name of the file/CoA itself is just fine, having it for a name on the page is just wrong. They should all be in proper standard native variant...this goes for all names on the site. See my previous argument for French, Scandinavian and Hungarian surnames. And it shouldn't be a problem in any case since we can have non-diacritic variant (f.e. pages of various families) as redirect. So if you have the page called ''House of Šubić'' you would also have a page ''House of Subic'' with a redirect. I don't see the issue. [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 12:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)		Also forgot to say - having non-diacritic variant for the name of the file/CoA itself is just fine, having it for a name on the page is just wrong. They should all be in proper standard native variant...this goes for all names on the site. See my previous argument for French, Scandinavian and Hungarian surnames. And it shouldn't be a problem in any case since we can have non-diacritic variant (f.e. pages of various families) as redirect. So if you have the page called ''House of Šubić'' you would also have a page ''House of Subic'' with a redirect. I don't see the issue. [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 18:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Finellach at 12:17, 11 May 2016

2016-05-11T12:17:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:17, 11 May 2016
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Hmm...that is weird. I'll speak with Joakim about it. My goal was actually to change all South Slavic families to their proper orthographic form eventually...just didn't have to time to do it yet. I mean we already follow the same rule with the French, Hungarian and Scandinavian names who all have their proper diacritic form. I am really busy these days and I hate to start something I couldn't finish in one go... [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 11:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)		Hmm...that is weird. I'll speak with Joakim about it. My goal was actually to change all South Slavic families to their proper orthographic form eventually...just didn't have to time to do it yet. I mean we already follow the same rule with the French, Hungarian and Scandinavian names who all have their proper diacritic form. I am really busy these days and I hate to start something I couldn't finish in one go... [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 11:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

			Also forgot to say - having non-diacritic variant for the name of the file/CoA itself is just fine, having it for a name on the page is just wrong. They should all be in proper standard native variant...this goes for all names on the site. See my previous argument for French, Scandinavian and Hungarian surnames. And it shouldn't be a problem in any case since we can have non-diacritic variant (f.e. pages of various families) as redirect. So if you have the page called ''House of Šubić'' you would also have a page ''House of Subic'' with a redirect. I don't see the issue. [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 12:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Finellach at 11:55, 11 May 2016

2016-05-11T11:55:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:55, 11 May 2016
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Why did you change the names and removed South Slavic orthographic letters? Also what you named "Eusebiovic" or whatever is well established to be '''Enzeblovic'''. And second, South Slavic names ending with an ''i'' such as ''Frankopani'' is a plural form of name...equivalent of writing it ''Frankopan's'' in English so it looks weird. There are also two other minor changes to Burmasovic which you renamed to Burmazovic and Dinjic to Diknic. You must understand that what is written in Fojnica (or Neoric armorial) is not an English variant of the name, it is a pre-standardized way of spelling, when certain sounds didn't have separate signs but were formed out of other letters or combinations of them. Also Korenic-Neoric is quite older armorial so if you are looking for a "standard" you should always go with the older source. [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 11:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)		Why did you change the names and removed South Slavic orthographic letters? Also what you named "Eusebiovic" or whatever is well established to be '''Enzeblovic'''. And second, South Slavic names ending with an ''i'' such as ''Frankopani'' is a plural form of name...equivalent of writing it ''Frankopan's'' in English so it looks weird. There are also two other minor changes to Burmasovic which you renamed to Burmazovic and Dinjic to Diknic. You must understand that what is written in Fojnica (or Neoric armorial) is not an English variant of the name, it is a pre-standardized way of spelling, when certain sounds didn't have separate signs but were formed out of other letters or combinations of them. Also Korenic-Neoric is quite older armorial so if you are looking for a "standard" you should always go with the older source. [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 11:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

			Hmm...that is weird. I'll speak with Joakim about it. My goal was actually to change all South Slavic families to their proper orthographic form eventually...just didn't have to time to do it yet. I mean we already follow the same rule with the French, Hungarian and Scandinavian names who all have their proper diacritic form. I am really busy these days and I hate to start something I couldn't finish in one go... [[User:Finellach\|Finellach]] ([[User talk:Finellach\|talk]]) 11:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)