User talk:NSamson: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| 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. | ||
Revision as of 21:43, 23 June 2018
To sign your posts on talk pages, use four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. -NSamson (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments
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. 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. 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.
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.
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. -NSamson (talk) 02:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)