Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Gbasaraba

Revision as of 18:36, 21 June 2018 by Finellach (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

You can move/rename the page so that should be your first option before creating a new one. I am writing you this because you just made two more pages and now there are three identical articles with variants of the name for the same entity: Voivodeship of Maramorus, Voivodeship of Maramures, Voivodeship of Marmatia. This is not the first time I saw you do this. The way you can rename/move to the page is: click on "Actions" on the upper left side->move->write in upper field the name of the article where you want to move it. Finellach (talk)

Edit: I have deleted Maramures and Marmatia pages since the other one seems to be your preference. But again, please use move/rename option first before making a new page. You did the same with Litovoi/Litova and at least one other page. Finellach (talk)

Hello again, quick note...when you are moving a page and especially files do NOT leave a redirect behind (there are two boxes which you need to untick at the bottom), this way by creating a redirect you are clogging the website with bunch of non-existent files. Also please note where the file and the articles/pages are linked and edit them so they are linking to the new/renamed pages and files. Finellach (talk)

Hello, Finellach! Thank you for all this information! I'm quite new at this and so I'm prone to making mistakes. I can't find the two boxes that need unticking, though. Can you be a bit more specific? Thank you in advance! (talk)

When you go to Actions->Move you will go to the move page, now there as you could see is the box where you can edit i.e. insert the new name where you are moving the page/file and below it there is a box where you can give a reason for it. Below everything you have small two boxes which are automatically ticked. One is "Leave a redirect behind" and the other one is "Watch source page and target page". You should untick the first one so it doesn't leave a redirect behind. Finellach (talk)

@Finellach - Simple users like us do not have that option (and we can't delete the redirect either). Solo (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok then, well the only option then is if you move something please let me know...on my talk page is just fine...because I can't just go overview the edits of every single person here. I discovered this only by accident when I noticed some of the files do not appear in certain articles because they were linked under the old name. ;) Finellach (talk)

Before you ask yourself why I have re-uploaded most of your CoA's...I have done it because I was correcting the alignment of the coat of arms you made. I don't how and why but most of your CoA's are slightly off for some reason. It's not a big deal since it can be corrected easily however if we leave it like that then we will have issues in the future. I have seen several CoA's made by both Joakim and myself where we actually corrected some minor glitches on your base and then our versions were off as well. Now the problem is if I copy an element from such a CoA to a standard positioned arms, then that element will be off in that new arms as well, so that makes not one or two but three problems...and since most of your CoA's are all in literally unique positions (sometimes more to the left, sometime to the right, etc.) this is an issue. So just letting you know before you start wondering. I would personally suggest when making new arms to take an older CoA's made by Joakim and then aligning it accordingly both vertically and horizontally to it. ;) Finellach (talk)

Oh, wow... this is really strange, especially since I always start new arms with arms taken directly from the site. :/ And yes, I've seen that most of the changes were slight alterations to the position of the arms. Which is in turn weird, because I always align them in the center in Illustrator. I'll see what I can do about this. Thanks! Gbasaraba (talk)
I think it may be something with the illustrator tbh, I've seen illustrator behaving really strange lately...for example everything seems fine loading it and saving it, then when uploaded suddenly stroke seems much thicker and so on...really weird. I usually use inkscape to position the arms as it has "paste in place" option which is really easy to use...however inkscape isn't completely compatible with illustrator lately and there may be some minor glitches as well so sometimes I am forced to use SVG Cleaner because Inkscape has the tendency to add strange codes when editing illustrator files. In any case it's not a big problem...was just letting you know why I did it. Finellach (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Update: for example, for the arms of the Kingdom of Romania, I simply downloaded them from WappenWiki, reflected the moon and then save it in the same position it was downloaded. So most likely, it's the Illustrator. :/ Gbasaraba (talk)

With all due respect...can you stop uploading ahistorical arms? What you uploaded just recently as supposed arms of Ferdinand I and Charles II as Knights of the Garter has nothing to do with historical accuracy and even heraldry. Putting the belt of the Garter (which is a supporter and not part of the actual shield/arms) within the arms and calling it their coa's as Knights of the Garter has no support in anything. I've deleted both of these btw. The arms of Ferdinand I and Charles I were basically the same arms they used as monarchs, especially Charles I, while Ferdinand (and his son presumably) used the arms that are similar (if not the same) as this. There is a guy on Wikipedia who made reproduction of Garter arms directly from stall plates in Westminster (where the order is based) and you can see his Wiki page and all the arms here. Finellach (talk)

I find it funny that you should say that the arms are ahistorical since they are based on the actual drawings from the College of Arms which I received from the Garter Principal King of Arms (here are the arms of Ferdinand I, for example: [1]). I am currently waiting for an illustrated catalogue of all the stall plates in St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle (where the order is actually based). If they are different from the College of Arms drawings, mea culpa. As a trivia, King Ferdinand I was very passionate about heraldry and phaleristics, being the one that actually designed both the insignia of the Order of Michael the Brave and the arms of Greater Romania, so I wouldn't be shocked if he was the one who sent his ideas to the College of Arms for his stall plate as a Knight of the Garter.Gbasaraba (talk)

You can find it funny as much as you want but I am not sure you understand what a coat of arms is. What you see in that print you linked here is the entire Garter stall plate, containing the supporters (eagle, great cross of Saint Michael and the garter belt of the order) along with other decorations (four small crosses on the sides of the plate and the crown). The actual coat of arms is in the middle. Ok? Anyway compare it to this, I already linked it earlier... Finellach (talk)

I was referring to the certainty with which you said that it had "nothing to do with historical accuracy", or the "no support in anything" part, when I based my rendition on an actual drawing of the College of Arms. I do, however, get your concern and arguments and am not trying to convince you otherwise, as I could very well be wrong. But the thing is, Romanian heraldry is a weird beast in its own right. It follows not the harsh Western rules of heraldry, but rather a very lax rule of personal and familial symbols. For example, in the arms of the Cantacuzino Princes, the Byzantine Eagle was both a supporter and a charge, depending on... the bearer's mood, to put it bluntly; or the arms of the Principality of Wallachia which one can find on Medieval and Renaissance documents and where there is a plethora of colours that is being used for both shield and charge (just take for example the first two documents on this page, emitted just four years apart - [2]. The same is the case with Ferdinand I's coat of arms above, I'd argue - the Romanian law clearly stipulated the ways in which the national coat of arms should be used, and there is absolutely no instance in which the Romanian eagle should only be a supporter without it being the charge of the greater shield; thus, the Romanian eagle should always be part of a shield, and not a supporter, considering "Legea pentru fixarea stemei Regatului României, întregit cu țările surori unite", which you can access here, although only in Romanian: [3]. Moreover, King Ferdinand's relation with the Order of Michael the Brave (and not Saint Michael - two very different persons) was very interesting. Just one year after the royal arms were adopted in 1921, the King designed and adopted new royal standards. The king's standard is basically a banner of arms with the shield changed to a purple with the Cross of Michael the Brave. And I believe that is exactly what King Ferdinand was going for when submitting the arms and standard for St George's Chapel, and I'm guessing the College of Arms didn't know how and where to put the Garter, and they put it around the middle shield, which should never be used on its own. And having an order's insignia as a charge is not that uncommon in British and Romanian heraldry (Malta, New South Wales, Giurgiu, to name a few). Anyway, I would love to continue the topic of Romanian heraldry further with you, if you want, as I believe we could both profit from each other's points of view.Gbasaraba (talk)

Well perhaps I expressed myself wrong earlier, since I was writing that reply a bit hastily....what I meant in my original post was that what you created and uploaded was against heraldic practice. What you are talking about is quite clear...the eagle is indeed both part of the coa and a supporter. However they are clearly distinguishable from each other...I mean it is clear what is a supporter and what is a charge or decoration. Romanian heraldry, and eastern heraldry in general, may indeed have some strange combinations but they still follow the general rules of heraldry and the rules are not really that different and clearly distinguish supporters and decorations from the actual CoA and the charges on it. You can actually look at all the earlier and current arms of various monarchies and you will see that they all have supporters and various other decorations. That still doesn't make the decorations part of the actual CoA's. That is what I was saying. And what you did was: take the entire stall with supporters and decorations and put them inside a shield which goes against heraldic practice and is not historically accurate as this was not how the arms was used and clearly not how the designed garter stall in question was meant to be used either. I hope that makes it clearer. Decorations such as: supporters, mottos, crowns and helms, etc, etc. are all part of heraldic practice but the actual coat of arms was, is and will be only the central part around which all the other decorations and supporters are centered around. Anyway perhaps I came off a bit harsh so don't think much about it...also that illustrated catalogue of all the plates sounds really interesting. ;) Finellach (talk)

Well, if that is the fact - and it might well be (I mean, I know WappenWiki only uses the shields of the heraldic achievements) - then the College of Arms messed up, because the Romanian eagle is *always* inside a shield, and not a standalone supporter, but I'll get back when the catalogue arrives from the U.K. By the way, do you happen to know if any other orders beside the Garter, the Elephant, the Seraphim, the Royal Victorian, the St Michael and St George, and the Golden Fleece have armorials? Gbasaraba (talk)

It doesn't have to be they got it wrong. It just might be how the coa was constructed and meant to be used in that very instance. Garter arms are not always exactly the same as the "default arms" various people held, so there are often small differences such as that. Anyway I am sure all those orders have armorials of their own (they are knightly orders after all) but we don't have any plans yet to introduce any of those...we still have quite a lot to do to finish current armorial and those, including the Garter (which we started) are not a priority atm...but we'll get to it eventually. Finellach (talk)