Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Finellach


So I've decided to halt the uploads for now, the reason is that your files gets "corrupted" somehow after you save a file. I have most of my files here on the site. I work with Illustrator and save a shield so that it is editable if anyone open it, meaning lines/strokes are not expanded to svg elements. Whenever you upload a new version of a file of "mine" that occur and I loose the possibility to fully edit the file (you can see my latest uploads). I remember that you use Inkscape so I need to figure out what can be changed in the save process so files are saved as in Illustrator. Hopefully I have solved this within a day. You are doing a massive work and I want to be able to use your files as well. :)
I still have the same issue (as below) that Illustrator crashes from time to time whenever I open one of your files/shields. I can edit Solo's files without any problems, NSamson's files are another issue as I can't open most of them. Thanks for the patience! I'll keep you posted about the 'save settings' JSpuller (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2021 (CET)

Yeah there seems to be an issue for quite some time now. It was me who had the problem of not being able to upload files I would edit from you, it started happening some time ago when you switched to newer version of illustrator...I think around v.16 or something but I somehow managed to circumvent it, but I know you probably have some problems with some of the files as inkscape and illustrator sometimes conflict with each other. I know as I use both, but I mostly work in inkscape as it's far more simpler and I can do most of the things I can do with illustrator without added complexity. My opinion of illustrator in general isn't very good...I find it a piece of s**t program with unnecessary added complexity...if you'll excuse my "french". ;) One of the issues is that you sometimes cannot open some more complex files from inkscape to illustrator...and I noticed such is the file with Rouvroy Sandricourt arms I uploaded earlier. I've tried everything but the problem is simply in how inkscape and illustrator are coded IMO. As far as Stolberg files you uploaded as an example I don't see the problem...I've uploaded my inkscape edited version and it loads fine and is identical to yours when both uploaded to illustrator. As for the other more complex file maybe you can use svg cleaner? I use to use it myself on some of your files or sometimes when I would edit your files if the trash additional code appeared. There is an online version here and I use to use this one as well and it worked quite well. Finellach (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2021 (CET)

Good evening, can I ask you why the pope shields are not fully complete? There are a few, among the most recent ones, with a blank white shield. It's just a "work in progress"? Thank you for your time. Filli99 (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2021 (CET)

Regarding the Sackvilles, I have a little more information yes. Heribrand the earliest ancestor temp. conquest held both those places in ssx and bucks in Domesday. The two families seem to be descended from two of his sons : Wm for Fawley and Robt for Buckhurst. The Fawley arms are 100% certain with a few testimonies from seals and armorials (including and, as early as the Glover Roll) and may very well be older than the quarterly arms (that would have been changed & derived from Vere early 13th c). Its a bit of a similar case to the Bassets with very distant cousin dating back from the conquest, and accounts/arms often mixed btw them (editing that dynasty page will be a mini-project on its own). It's entirely possible that the Fawley branch is the main one but it's also probably wise not too go to far in extrapolation here.
I will indeed have to rearrange the two Powell pages together when everything's finished (it can wait till then though : the roll I have long finished but I have yet to write an intro for it). To be honest I'm not a huge fan of having multiple clicks to get access to the heart of the content, but I'll admit an intro page à la Wijnbergen with the two links below will probably work best here. --Solo (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2021 (CEST)

Reg Sackville. It's entirely possible that the first branch just went extinct and the manor having reverted to the closest relative, was then again granted to another cadet, that time in the surviving Buckhurst branch. All of that would fit with the various family trees (the Buckhurst branch surviving only), accounts (the line for Fawley being different from the origin & not beginning with Bartholomew 13th c.), testimonies (Glover is indeed Bartholomew) and I also remember reading about various claims of inheritance between the two branch at different point in time : spec. the 14th c. case (Thomas of Fawley claiming Andrew +1369 of Buckhurst's inheritance iirc) would have been much harder to make if the two lines were separated since the time of conquest.
Reg Powell Roll. This is not "corrected" but how I read those items (both legends & paintings) and I stand by those. Corrected would mean that I've restored something that can't be seen from the original material which is not the case here, or when there's any trace/evidence of something. I've seen far more difficult to read/interpret than anything in those english digitized armorials & they really feel like easier to work with when compared to photoshooting/studying wall paintings for example (when you're even allowed to). Clemmensen disagrees with other authors & ordinaries on how he interprets some of those shields and I, in turn disagree with him on a few entries (sometimes siding with others as I do on Lacy 598). However I also agree with him 99% of the time (on legend & painting, less on IDs) including on item that you guys have read differently (on 156 or 611 for example). In the end, the study of an armorial is by essence an interpretation and there is no single ordinary of those rolls for that reason. What I can say is that it's essential to take layering, turning and disolving into account when it comes to centuries old painted material. White paint doesn't fade and age the same way when it's a third layer coat of paint when compared to its use as the base paint of a shield : on 611 for ex the paint disolved onto the cross below preventing the green paint to fade entirely in some places (top, right and bottom), darkening it by disolving in others (left mullet), that is why the remaining traces of stars appear somewhat negative (they aren't : the green paint just didnt disolve/scratch evenly) & had the cross been white painted (left wo/ paint in that case) there would only been green paint where the mullets were, nowhere else (one could argue that the mullets traces are just coincidence & specks of scratched paint and have a valid point, again that's subjective).
Clemmensen's material is copyrighted & only allows sharing/redistributing without modifications so it's either all of his study or none at all. I just didn't want a mix of both appear on the website. Now, the fact that I (respectfully) disagree on various aspects of his study of the Powell is the very reason I started doing this one and not something else (it's also a more modern and complete armorial so arguably more useful for reusing its material all around the website) as I don't find any intellectual interest in copy/pasting someone else's work that's already available somewhere else on the internet (and that has happened in the past on the website with copyrighted & published material, and without permission or credit).--Solo (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2021 (CEST)

I didn't get that you meant spec. those two blank items at the beginning. This is 100% a debatable and editing choice indeed : the purpose of the website is also a bit artistic and leaving such content that was specifically done for this roll completely hidden under a link is a bit of a missed opportunity (otherwise I have no problem leaving unreadable or missing shields blank). I'll admit I've been struggling with how to clearly distinguish those kind of editing comments with the regular identifications so they stand out a little better (also in case Furnival 193 or the Dering falsification for ex). Can't say I'm 100% satisfied with that right now (I've tried bold and didn't like that it's too much either).
It's also the case for the legend in different hands and a way of distinguishing them from each other (ie other than just being on two separate lines). Sometimes the eliz. legend is the only one and sometimes just a wrong guess as in 594 & 600 (in such cases the way it's edited right now, could make it seem as going against the legend but it's actually against a much later correction).--Solo (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2021 (CEST)

I haven't been able to access file uploading recently either (and I only use Illustrator w/ the appropriate settings).
Joakim probably just forgot to ban all lesser group rights levels (besides admins) from uploading too. That'd probably be why that user still had access to the upload page while we can't. I'm not privy to anything but I don't think there's anymore to it than that.--Solo (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2021 (CEST)

Good evening dear Finellach, can I kindly ask you to add the missing papal coat of arms? The sources can be find in the "Papal armorial" Wikipedia page. Also, regarding papal coat of arms, I tried to edit three or four shield because the correct stars are of 6 points, not 8, but I noticed that the file returned to the older wrong version. Could you please check that? Thank you for your time. Filli99 (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2021 (CEST)

I appreciate your work. I wanted to point out that the Björn Thorleifsson shield is incorrect. The bear should be rampant (on two feet facing left. See https://sarpur.is/Adfang.aspx?AdfangID=354512 and https://www.geni.com/photo/view/3249703?album_type=photos_of_me&photo_id=6000000027293500268