Difference between revisions of "User talk:JSpuller"

Revision as of 09:20, 25 February 2021

Corrections

• For update
• Tver.svg

  Adding this here as well so I don't forget to update it. Edit: agreed, my recent "update" was more of a small fix so the current arms is more-less a token until properly made/updated.

• 

  This is merely a little heads up that I am revamping quartered eagles and other smaller eagles so they fit the area of the shield better. Similar to the quartered lions.

• Mississippi.svg

  CoA is out of alignment, stroke of the letters, escutcheon should be standardized (we have Alabama arms) and the eagle hand holding arrows should be fixed.

• Cossack Hetmanate.svg

  Needs bunch of corrections, stroke, etc. probably an entire re-work of the main charge

• 

  Small request, the 1st and 4th quarter should be actually a naturally flowing river i.e. it is described as "Welse-Fluß" i.e. the river Welse. I presume this would mean the lines should have elements similar to Gyllenhielm

New Arms requests

Illeshazy or rather Illésházy - Barons and counts. Their arms shows a blue shield with a black eagle being pierced by an arrow, the stance of the eagle (or hawk?) is somewhat different on some variants regarding the fact is it being pierced or also holding an arrow in its beak. First variant examples: example 1, example 2, example 3., example 4. However I believe this variant is actually just a simple variant of how the arms is really supposed to look which is shown in far more prevalent variant which shows the eagle having a bit of a different stance: example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5, example 6, example 7, example 8, example 9, etc, etc.

Bandini Ancient - the arms of Bandini family is azure, bend argent charged with two black eagle heads holding a bezant. Couldn't really find the variant without the later imperial eagle augmentation but they surely used it before the agumentation. Example seen below.

Bandini- as mentioned above the later variants used the same arms with the imperial augmentation like so many Italian families. example 1, example 2, example 3, etc.

Bandini Piccolomini - they later adopted the name and arms of Piccolomini family and afterwards a branch of Piccolomini family adopted their arms instead with the name of Naldi Bandini Piccolomini. Arms is quartered Piccolomini and Bandini, chief Or, charged with and imperial eagle. example 1. There is also a variant as seen above with Piccolomini quarter being default and only Bandini quartered augmented with the imperial eagle

Francesco Bandini Piccolomini - arms is same as above but without the imperial augmentation, quartered Bandini and Piccolomini. This person in question was the son of the heiress of the Todeschini Piccolomini branch that married a Bandini and brought them Piccolomini name and arms. example

Stolberg Wertheim - great arms of Louis of Stolberg, Count of Stolberg and Wetheim. He had bunch of arms, this one is the great arms variant, others are uploaded. Example seen here. This arms is basically a merger between this arms and [http://wappenwiki.org/index.php?title=File:L%C3%B6wenstein-Wertheim-Virneburg.svg this arms

Stolberg-Stolberg Princes - Arms of the younger branch of Stolberg family, later Princes of Stolberg at Stolberg i.e. Stolberg-Stolberg. Arms is mainly hybrid of previous Stolberg arms and the the one similar to Schwarzburg arms. example 1, example 2, etc.

Stolberg-Wernigerode Princes - senior branch of Stolberg family, arms as Princes. As previous it's a hybrid of previous arms and some elements used also in Schwarzburg arms. example 1,

Livro requests

Lago - Arms of Lago - no need for elaboration, the image pretty much speaks for itself
Gil Vantvisyet - Livro image, quartered Or and Azure, not sure what those things are in 1st and 4th quarter but it sure looks like some kind of shoes. 2nd and 3rd quarter a moor's head, over all a cross gules hollow argent

Pachecho Livro - source image. The arms of Pachecho in Livro seems like a hybrid of several cauldron variants we have: Pachecho, Manrique de Lara, Lara Ancient. The elements on the cauldron seem to be vaire nebuly similar to Vasconcelos f.e.

Gabriel Goncalves - source image. Arms is double-headed eagle holding a moor's head, all withing a "rope bordure" similar to Eca i.e. Eça arms.

Botos - source image shows a shield divided per saltire Or and gules, Or quarters charged with a Moor's head, gules quarters charged with argent towers

Viveiro - source image shows a shield quartered. 1st and 4th quarter are similar to Guzman or Manrique de Lara cauldorns (not so many serpent heads), cauldrons are completely chequy argent and gules on a azure field, bordure ermine. 1st and 3rd quarter are a variant of Fajardo quarters, water part seems smaller on this variant than on the example linked, while the branches are intertwined in a saltire.

Comment

Since you decided to ignore me and do your thing, as always, I have to say one last time (and repeat myself, even though I hate insisting so I do it very rarely but now I must...) ... having different sizes of escutcheons, unless they are specific arms such as Greek-Danish arms or the Windsor-Saxe-Coburg arms (which truly are specific) as they are more on par with this type of arms, is pure and simple unheraldic practice...it's like an equivalent of having different shades of same tincture almost. It also creates discrpecency and confusion and has also broken the continuity in several arms and more importantly in the general outlook...most notable example is with this arms just to make the worst example, label is now completely ridiculous especially the charges on it...not to mention the above linked Schwarzburg arms and several other arms which also now look ridiculous in comparison and vice-versa...not sure how the mentioned Schwarzburg arms can be fixed in first place to look as they do now or if it will be "fixed" at all...which in any case will look terrible overall. Don't get me wrong, individually the arms with bigger escutcheon look great...on their own...but in general it just seems off. I've tried tirelessly to standardize and fix as many things as possible (god knows I made my share of ridiculous mistakes but I tried to correct them) everything as much as possible, as you have no doubt noticed...so much that it bordered on which I can only imagine as extreme annoyance to you, but now IMO it is all down the drain...maybe I am being overdramatic so I apologize for annoying you even more...I'll keep quiet from now on.... Finellach (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2021 (CET)

Replying to your other messages. Regarding the "inescutcheons", I don't find it a mistake or ridiculous as you put it, I do agree however that they should perhaps not be applied to all but limited to only let's say kingdom arms as some arms looks .
That is incorrect, the "full coat of arms above the cross" is something that appears in modern renditions as historical sources show a smaller shield/inescutcheon. The arms of Castracane deli Antlminelli is a bordure

CASTRACANE degli ANTELMINELLI
Arma : Di azzurro al cane levriero rampante di argento, linguato e collarinato di rosso(dei Castracane), con la bordura fusata in banda d'argento e d'azzurro(concessione di Baviera)

And no the Greek coat of arms is not the inspiration, the inspiration is from a number of different shields, a few listed below;

Greece - http://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/images/3/3b/Greece1888.jpg, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/Ströhl-HA-LI-Fig._02.png/1200px-Ströhl-HA-LI-Fig._02.png
Romania - http://www.hubert-herald.nl/Romania2_bestanden/image009.jpg, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzfH78RXAAAzBpW?format=jpg&name=small
HRE - https://www.numisnumismatics.com/27397-large_default/charles-vi-thaler-1752-kb.jpg, https://d3k6u6bv48g1ck.cloudfront.net/coin-image-1_Thaler-Silber-Heiliges_Römisches_Reich_(962_1806)-500-250-ekMKqUpYGh8AAAFg6348PlOK.jpg
Sweden/Vasa - https://c8.alamy.com/comp/PDE0W7/95-carriage-harness-of-sigismund-iii-vasa-PDE0W7.jpg, https://www.rct.uk/sites/default/files/styles/rctr-scale-1300-500/public/collection-online/b/a/439348-1388412033.jpg?itok=pv13BaQD, https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/7ReCtvcAMFREJ0rwXTMu-aRYCCgtVzBzc-6u7_gcXdVStpzgZZTkUpwEblo-GxY7kA
Denmark - http://www.hubert-herald.nl/Denmarkach_bestanden/image009.jpg, https://aroyalheraldry.weebly.com/uploads/4/9/1/5/49154451/2693927.png?248, http://www.hubert-herald.nl/Sverige1_bestanden/image111.jpg, http://www.hubert-herald.nl/Denmarkach_bestanden/image082.jpg
Etruria - https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/standard-for-the-house-of-bourbonparma-in-the-kingdom-of-etruria-1801-picture-id150616780?s=594x594, https://numismatica-italiana.lamoneta.it/label.php?id=20644
Croy - https://www.teylersmuseum.nl/nl/collectie/munten-en-penningen/tmnk-00333-charles-philippe-de-cro-markies-van-havre/slideshow/tmnk-00333b-jpg/@@images/image/large, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Wappen_1594_BSB_cod_icon_326_014_crop.jpg

I am not ignoring you, I have three kids and not enough time over to reply on most occasions as I despite mediawiki's 'chat', it is the most unfriendly UI I've come across. To that I apologize, also I don't have an issue to revise the uploaded arms but I don't want to delete all of them. Also the George_of_Denmark,_Duke_of_Cumberland arms looks great to me, Windsor-Saxe-Coburg. :D JSpuller (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2021 (CET)

Ok I thought you were ignoring me there lol...(un)fortunately for me I have plenty of time due to this corona virus bs...as you may have noticed with my recent activity. Regarding "the issue" with escutcheons...I agree completely with Greece being larger as it should be, as I said it is basically a shield upon a shield rather than a classic style escutcheon. In fact my opinion is that Greek "escutcheon" should be even larger, the size should be the same as on above posted Vianden arms which is slightly bigger even than the current one, both the Greek and Saxe-Gotha arms, they should be of this size. The next issue is the other arms, ones you described as having an escutcheon themselves...they should be of the same size as all other escutcheons, makes no sense for them to be larger. And the last issue is that the escutcheons are in general IMO way too small. So my suggestion would be find a middle ground, literally. If the default escutcheon is increased by half the amount between the "default" version and the current Danish escutcheons size f.e. it would satisfy both conditions...that the escutcheons should be larger in general and that the Danish arms should be larger in general, plus they would all be of same size and standardized. Surely you can see that the Danish arms f.e. are way too big. To give an example here are my proposal for the sizes: the old size, new size and the proposed size. As you can see what I am proposing is the middle ground, it is in fact much closer to the size on various illustrations in respect to the rest of the arms. It is also my proposal for all other escutcheons as well. For example I am also suggesting we standardize the sizes for small escutcheons on the quarters, they are currently all of different sizes....the example of sizes and position for the "new setup". And the last issue is the problem with the labels, I've noticed they are not center aligned and are asymetrical....but that is another question so I would plan to standardize those as well in time. And sorry for uploading examples and wasting space, but I couldn't explain as well as any image can show.
Edit: Oh an no need to delete anything...I am only suggesting a tweak for the size, slightly reducing it and applying it to the rest of the escutcheons...and also treating Saxe-Gotha and Glucksburg-Greece (possibly Romanian arms) as specific sizes escutcheons. Finellach (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2021 (CET)


So I've uploaded the end result how I think would fit both standards. As I was writing earlier in a hurry I may have not made a lot of sense...was kinda jumbled. So the two examples how escutcheons sizes should be adjusted: Danish arms along with the label to show hot it also fits...notice that the label is also centered and adjusted, was totally out of "balance" as most labels currently are.
Arms of Croy showing "default plain" escutcheon and also escutcheon in relation to smaller escutcheons, notice the smaller escuts are adjusted as well...most on the website are actually of wide variety of sizes and totally "unstandardized".

I would also point out that regular escutcheons and quartered escutcheons sometimes vary on sizes in different illustrations, especially historical sources...the reason for that is the quartered variants are more complex so it was harder to draw them and show them in a compact clear way while escutcheons without quarters were easy to draw and seen clearly...overall however, we are talking about normal escutcheons, regardless of whether they have quarters smaller escutcheons within themselves or are just simple arms.
In this regard to respond to earlier links you posted I have to say, just looking at them, they all seem like normal escutcheons except one Romanian variant (which btw I said was kinda specific case, but I still think Romanian arms on this site should have the same escutcheon as all others), while the HRE variants are actually showing full coat of arms with an eagle supporter not an actual coat of arms i.e. "Or variant" of the shield.

In any case this is why I think the current situation makes things confusing as having some of the complicated escutcheons with numerous quarters being smaller just because they don't have an escut themselves looks completely off, while escuts such as f.e. this Stirling arms which are simple but have smaller escuts are now enormous: Stirling example compared in relation to this arms. As you can see it would make much more sense to have these quartered complicated arms bigger rather than choosing arbitrarily that only those with small escuts should be bigger regardless of how simple they are. Makes little sense and looks really really weird. So in the end I revert to my argument, why not increase the size of all escutcheons in general and this time standardize them properly, this includes also various sizes for basically same thing we currently have in dozens. I know this would be a somewhat mammoth task but properly fixing and standardizing them once and for all would make sense. I should also point out that since I am here on the site, I think you have changed the size of the esuctheons at least three times so far, from just absolutely enormous to this tiny variant atm to now again enormous...but only for certain selected coa's. Wouldn't it be time to settle for a size and stick with it? As we did with most other things. Cheers. Finellach (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2021 (CET)

I am here to let you now I've decided to revert the arms with enlarged escutcheons back to standard size. The more I've looked into it the more I was convinced it looks wrong. I have come to a conclusion it's not only the issue of standardization or the way we depict escuts on this site but that in general some of these modified arms are just plain wrong. Namely just to mention the Wittelsbach arms are specific in such a way that the escutcheons are incorporated within the structure of the arms so that the escutcheons does not go over other elements or within over other quarters...this means the arms of Maxilian I Joseph and Charles Theodore. The same issue is with the Bourbon-Spain arms, the escutcheon is literally part of the structure of the arms, I've looked into the original images that were used for inspiration of the illustrations on Wikipedia f.e. and they are all depicted in similar fashion, even Wikipedia follows this in most part save for some of the illustrations where the author did not follow it as he or she probably considered it unimportant...which I disagree and obviously you disagreed as well consider the original drafts you made in the first place. Next is Greece...from the arms you linked here and from what I've seen, the original arms of Greece shows a normal escut on a couped cross, now compared to a later variant which showed a full cross with a much larger coat of arms of Glucksburg dynasty as seen here...the difference is enormous. As for Sweden and Denmark, I've literally looked at dozens of variants, modern and historical and I can see nothing that would suggest the escuts were bigger on some and smaller on other. Just a few examples: example 1 of Pfalz-Zweibrucken dynasty, example 2 of Pfalz-Zweibrucken and compared to Bernadotte arms, we can see the size of escutcheon is the same. Even on modern illustrations (such as Wikipedia or other heraldic sites, the escutcheons are all depicted the same size) etc, etc. I could post dozens of examples of both Swedish and Danish arms, modern or historical where they are all depicted of relatively the same size depending on the author. And same goes for everything else...not to continue with the rant anymore...

In any case I would never revert you unless it's a mistake like a wrong tincture or some corrupted element, but this time I have to react, ofc you have the last word in the end anyway...but I gotta do what I think is the best...can't help myself... Finellach (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2021 (CET)