User talk:Solo

@Finellach Looking at how the Poitiers page looks like now, I think there should be a clearer standard format for Personal Arms (possibly without having to make repeats of a further cluttering formula like Arms from Seal ?). Dates for seals and dates for titles aren't clearly identifiable at first look (if it's not obvious to me anymore, I can't imagine the random reader being positive on anything). I don't know maybe dates refering to the testimony could be in italics or use different brackets to distinguish them from biographic dates ?
I formatted all my dates for seals like that, following an existing example (not sure which now but I looked for one before, I'm certain of that). Until now I've really avoided to mix biography and record in the dates because I thought it would confuse things but that's not a solution.

Here are a few random ideas to illustrate what I mean (really randomly trying, not propositions).

• Personal Arms
• 

  Aymar III de Poitiers
  Count of Valentinois and Diois
  [1270]

• 

  Aymar IV de Poitiers
  Son of the Count of Valentinois
  (Count in 1277)
  [Seal : 1257]

• 

  Amédée de Poitiers
  Lord of Saint Vallier
  Seal, 1337

• 

  Louis II de Poitiers
  Count of Valentinois
  1374-1419
  Arms from Gelre Armorial

• 

  Charles de Poitiers
  Bishop of Châlons (1389–1413)

• 

  Charles de Poitiers
  Bishop of Langres
  1413–1433

• 

  Diane de Poitiers
  Duchess of Valentinois
  (Seal, 1548)

Maybe there could be a dummy unlinked dynasty page where we could present all cases and how they should be formatted, something that contributors could refer to in case of a doubt ? (I know you're not but I am a little bit unsure what to use at this point).

Lol oh trust me it confuses me as well. This is one of the issues we have at this moment on the site because we don't have a real consensus nor have ever actually discussed this issue, in fact I think I actually originally went with a style you show here on Chalons arms but Joakim didn't like it. Anyway looking at your suggestions I'd say I really like the 3rd and the last suggestion. You should ask Joakim as well. Finellach (talk)

Of course, I only wanted to run it by you before bothering him.
One thing italics separate context lines would allow is for easily and clearly distinguishing context from main biographic elements. That 1257 seal for ex. is one of those for which I couldn't find a satisfying way to present both (we really can't remove the context).

• Personal Arms
• 

  Aymar IV de Poitiers
  Count of Valentinois
  1277-1329
  Seal, 1257 - Aymar, son of the Count of Valentinois

This way I think it would still work, even if further informations needed to be included in parentheses (reverse, conjecture tinctures, that kind of stuff).--Solo (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Well if it's worth anything, I agree with your suggestion. The only thing that frightens me though, is that if we do go along with this, I'll have to go back to check and modify all those family pages that are on the website right now...and there are A LOT f them. :p Finellach (talk)

Wouldn't have to be overnight of course, just in the long run. What I'd really want I guess is an example page (could be in a discussion attached somewhere, doesn't have to be a real page) with all needed possibilities and the expected formatting that would serve as a guideline in the future, rather than looking randomly for an example and edit it. That's why I do for everything right now which isn't practical and could even lead to repeating a same mistake over and over.

Just another test (seal, painting, roll of arms)

• Personal Arms
• 

  Aymar IV de Poitiers
  Count of Valentinois
  1277-1329
  Seal, 1257 - Aymar, son of the Count of Valentinois

• 

  Aymar IV de Poitiers
  Count of Valentinois
  1277-1329
  Salle de la Diana

• 

  Louis II de Poitiers
  Count of Valentinois
  1374-1419
  Gelre Armorial

Also, slightly related. What do you think about including the earliest known testimony for a dynasty even if the case they don't differ from the regular dynastic ones. I did just that for the Blacas but I remember you removed them when I included the 1143 seal for the count of Savoie so I'm not sure you agree it fits there. I'm not sure because you may just have wanted to make the section less crowded at the time but I have simply avoided including any since. That's a point that's not clear for me I mean.--Solo (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)