User talk:Finellach

Comment

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)

Finellach. when you upload a remake/new version of an arms that I've uploaded something gets "wrong" as I often can't edit your file without Illustrator crashing or that the stroke weight gets corrupted when I save the file. What program are you using for editing arms and what is your 'svg options'?

Well I usually use Inkscape since most of the edits I do is are mostly simple, rearranging, minor line corrections, re-coloring, etc. Except ofc for the quartered arms I make but I had no issue using any file whatsoever so far. I did however notice that some files do not want to load in illustrator and just simply crash it but I rarely use illustrator anyway.

Comment

Sorry for the mess with http://wappenwiki.org/index.php?title=File:Czechoslovakia_1920-1960.svg ~~Dughorm

Comment

Hey, what is the source for http://wappenwiki.org/index.php?title=File:Sviatoslav_I_of_Kiev.svg? Sviatoslav's symbol was not heraldic, predating heraldry by a century or so, and I have never encountered it being used by later Rurikids in a heraldic design, or attributed. ~~Dughorm

@Dughorn It's a symbol from his seal. BTW I didn't make that coat of arms, Joakim did. I just corrected the tincture on it as far as I remember. Finellach (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2020 (CEST) Edit: I forgot to add, Rurikids are a mess right now...I wanted to develop them a bit more, especially since they had so many branches but the whole thing is so damn confusing I just gave up every time. Wish I could find some better source with their heraldry and their branches.

Im curious, what's your reference for the lion gutée being the ancient arms of the Nevilles of Langham ?
The first (and only) recorded occurence I could find in ordinaries (for any similar design) is noted in Thomas Jenyns' (dated 1410) :
106 "John Neville le forester Gules a lion argent gutée Sable" while 61 is "John Neville of Essex Azure a lion Or" in the same roll
Coincidentally, in that tincture order, those are the also used in 14th c. rolls by the Hamelyns, another family of Leicestershire, close neighbours of the Rearsby manor
There are several seals of the Neville of Essex with the regular lion from the 13th c. and a dozen corresponding Azure a lion Or entries from many rolls (Watford, St George, Parliamentary, Powell, etc)
On the other hand, the Nevilles dit le Forester in lincs and leics (in Cleatham and Rearsby I think) had very different arms (in seals and rolls, some earlier so more likely to be actual ancient arms) : the main type is a chief (or per fess) indented and a bend overall (far too many variations to list them here).
The Laceby subline used yet another different design (Or lozengy Gules, a canton ermine)--Solo (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2020 (CEST)

Source is Burke's Peerage which is and should be the principle source for making general arms of the family unless it can be proven to be blatantly wrong. It lists both these coat of arms, however, the azure lion Or is almost always exclusively attributed to John, 2nd Baron Neville of Essex and his father Hugh, 1st Baron Neville of Essex. These two were the last members of this line although John apparently had at least a couple of younger brothers of which we don't know anything about and possibly died before him as his title went extinct with his death and he had no issue. link 1, link 2, link 3 Finellach (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2020 (CEST)

I have nothing against Burke, but you can't use it as a primary source over iconographic testimonies. Modern armorials just aren't considered a reliable source for medieval heraldry (by essence they can't be). A lion gutty is very much a 14th c. design which can't predate the Glover Roll or even the earliest seals of the family. We know the arms of almost all individuals in the Essex line from Hugh +1234, by either seals or roll entries.
- Hugh used per fess indented and a bend overall on his seal (1219 I think but I dont have the exact ref).
- His son John has three different arms in various rolls (poss. some confusion spec for the last one, but Brault attributes those three to John +1246) : Or a bend Gules, crusilly sable (Glover), Azure a cinquefoil & a border Or (MP), Per fess Gules & Vert, a label Sable (MP)
- John +1282 is the first proven to have used Azure a lion Or (1260 seal + rolls) but since he uses a label first, its safe to assume his elder brother is to be credited for the change somewhere in the (late) 1250's : Hugh and John are still represented in various versions of Matthew Paris with different variants of the ancient design. One we have is Neville_Paris.svg - qtly indented & bend which is the variant found in MP vers. A - Another version from MP (BoA vers. C) is per fess indented Gules and Vert, a bend Or (19 & 69 hugo de neville, johannes de novilla w/ identical arms) which is similar to the design of their grandfather's seal.
- The next two generations consistently used Azure a lion Or (seals + rolls, many entries). The seal of Alice de Nerford 1379 shows a lion impaling a chief indented (Nerford/Rearsby).--Solo (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2020 (CEST)

I am not using it as a primary source, but it is a source nonetheless...one which cannot be ignored either. I was clear on this before as well on the previous family articles discussions we had...the idea of a family page/article is to list all arms recorded...primary, secondary, whatever source....even if attributed but prominent...we should include them with proper wording. Now as far as the "ancient" wording goes under the arms in question, it's not set in stone, it's just something I wrote at the time...originally I intended it (and I still do) to word it as "alternative" or "attributed by Burke's Peerage", the page is unfinished obviously. Now I see you have already identified them so why are you telling me all this? Why not include it on the page in first place? I mean I understand if you wish to keep me updated for some reason and I am grateful but you're discussing a non-issue, I have no problem with you editing it. In fact you should've included it on the Neville page in first place...but ok. Anyway, since I see you mostly identified most of these...what would you say whos CoA would this be? Could this be John de Neville, Constable of Tower of London and father of and father of Hugh Neville, 1st Baron Neville of Essex? Finellach (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2020 (CEST)

I'm only discussing this item because you changed my entry for Langham and I dont believe in editing back & forth without a constructive discussion.
I hope you'll agree that this is not the same as including additionnal arms attributed arms by Burke and quite frankly I dont see the point in reverting your change without explaining why I think this isn't right in the first place (besides annoying people what good does that do ?).
I didnt plan on making a full page of the Nevilles of Essex either : what I tried to do is make an effort to properly include (some of) the missing entries in the kingdom of England each time I pass by one in the roll and notice we dont have them (which means probably a good quarter or even maybe a third of all cases for the Powell roll, so hundreds really & I'm already very worried I wont finish it before work gets to me again).
I am not disputing the inclusion of attributed arms either : the Senlis discussion we had is quite different as it's an iconographic testimony read erroneously by that author : only one seal exists, it's either read correctly or not. That author never wrote that it is a different seal or that he knew of arms from a different source but clearly tried to describe the same exact seal as showing three cups and is later proven wrong by the existence of multiple less mutilated copies from the same matrice clearly showing garbs.
To better explain my argument from back then and I probably should have presented it this way back then bc I still dont agree with those arms being represented just like the misinterpreted Geneva seals (not a big fan of spreading misconceptions).
In medieval armorials, arms are often interpreted differently by successive authors, yet we dont consider those different interpretations as attributed arms. Let's take an hypothetical example here : where greenstreet saw a chief azure, Brault will see a chief vert, and here on the website we'll have sometimes an third different read (hell we sometimes have different reads between ourselves). Yet those entries (from the same copy of the roll) only exist once, we either read them correctly or not but we never include all those different interpretations although in that very example, Greenstreet's hypothetical read would have been the exact same case as the Senlis seal.
I could not identify that John de Neville back when I edited the Segar (he also appears in the Collins Roll, 1295) : Brault didnt identify him and Clemmensen notes him as a Neville of Holt but also locates him in Northumberland so he must have had a little more to go with. I would have to check my notes from back then (that spreadsheet was a mess and I'm writing all of this a bit in a hurry - I also have a poss. theory where the lion gutty comes from but have to go right now).--Solo (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2020 (CEST)

Well the whole site is a continuing process so these things are normal, I've made (well I'd say everyone who participated on this site has) a fair share of mistakes before only to correct myself countless times...doesn't matter really in the long run as long as we get it right in the end. ;) If you have the information I lack you are always welcome to correct it...I don't see the problem with it, at all. As for Neville's, they are actually a page I did not so long ago...I mean it is quite an important family in English history and quite a prolific one as well with several quite important branches. As for Senlis I still don't see the big issue, as it clearly says on three cup arms that it's an attributed arms and is featured only on the family page. As for Geneva I have no idea what is going on there as I did only a couple of edits there just linking couple of arms that weren't uploaded by me...I don't really know much about it. Anyway, I've corrected the Neville of Essex page, you can do the necessary changes at any point as you see fit. Finellach (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2020 (CEST)