User talk:A1 Aardvark

Welcome

{{helpme}} Hi, I'm new here (obviously). I've been creating a few new svg images for a couple of wikipedia pages. The images are heraldic in nature and so are built using components of other images already on wikimedia. I tried uploading one: Viscount_Linley.svg and it appears to have worked, but I can't link his wikipedia entry to the file. Also, the description of the file suggests it is an update of another file. I was trying to suggest that it was derived from a number of files, not an update of any particular one. I've seen this done for other heraldic images. Any advice would be much appreciated!

I was able to add the file to his page by using the normal [[File:Viscount_Linley.svg]]. Note that the file name is used is "Viscount_Linley.svg" and not "Viscount_Linley.SVG". The capitalization is important. See WP:FILE for some documentation. When you say "not an update of any particular one", I assume you are referring to the "This is a retouched picture, which means that it has been digitally altered from its original version. Modifications: '. The original can be viewed here: Countess_of_Wessex_Arms.svg." text. Removing the {{RetouchedPicture||editor=|orig=Countess_of_Wessex_Arms.svg}} should do the trick. Does this help?—C45207 | Talk 11:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for looking into this. I've tried refreshing the page numerous times, but I'm still not seeing the link. In fact, I'm still seeing "Viscount_Linley.SVG" I must be doing something wrong. Also, with regards to the creation/licensing matter, I believe the page for the file should look more like this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countess_of_Snowdon_Arms.svg

I produced the work in the same manner this person did but I can't figure out what route he used to get this page setup. Also the file description relates to the one it was based on, rather than what it is now. "Description Coat of arms of Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon" Thanks again!— Preceding unsigned comment added by A1 Aardvark (talk • contribs)

Sorry. I wasn't clear. I didn't make the change to Viscount Linley. I've left that to you as a learning exercise. As for the file description, I'd just copy and paste the elements from the page you'd like it to look like, while editing those elements that need to be changed. Since you uploaded the file to Wikimedia Commons, you'll need to make your changes there.—C45207 | Talk 13:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, many thanks! I think I've got it working now. Your instructions were very helpful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by A1 Aardvark (talk • contribs)

Glad I could help. I'm done for today...—C45207 | Talk 14:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology

Welcome! Since you're kinda new to Wikipedia as a whole, I thought it might be best as an experienced user to say a few things about how the WikiProject operates. It covers heraldic armory (heraldry) and flags (vexillology). If you want to know more about the WikiProject's operation or general guidance, you can ask here and start a new section. The above question suggests you have uploaded coats of arms (vector = good), in which case try to add these to appropriate articles. The majority of coats of arms are only relevant to the person who used them, assuming they are notable. Some pages exist here to specifically describe coats of arms in detail, but only where deserving of a subject. These take the format "Coat of arms of [place/organisation/person]", but are created sparingly. With Viscount Linley - since the image is on WikiMedia commons, you want to go to the same file reference (with .svg in lower case) there, in this case here. To edit something on that page, press edit and then you should be able to see what needs changing - in this case the bit after "|description = " which is displayed as the description for the image. You're more than welcome to ask me if you have any further questions, through my talk page. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 13:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a few concerns about the contents of the infobox:

If "imaped" is supposed to be "impaled" then it's not correct - impalement involves putting arms side-by-side (per pale) in halves. This coat of arms is quartered, a different form.
Are you French or using a French source? Lots of it is using French terms/is in French. I can help you out converting it - it's not unclear - but I'd like to know what's up first.

Ah. I did a bit of searching, and it looks like it is from the French Wikipedia. If this is the case, mention this on the talk page and put a link there to the French page. I'll then convert it if you want, or you can if you feel able. We really could do with a reliable source though. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You repeat yourself partly in the "Other elements" bit.

- Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my appologies for the error. I must admit I merely took the blazon that was already on the page and tried to fit it into the template used for many of the other members of the royal family. I might have tinkered with it slightly to get it to fit properly. Any corrections you can suggest would be great. I am really more of an admirer of heraldry than an expert. (Though I should have caught the difference between impaled and quartered!) I have also created an image for Linley's father Lord Snowdon. My source for that was Jiri Louda's book. I'll put that up as soon as I can.

Oh, nope, I'm not French. But it looks like whoever put the original material for Linley (and Snowdon) might have been. English translations would be great! I thought it looked a bit odd, but then, as I said, I'm really a novice. :)

Argh... I still don't understand what I'm doing wrong when it comes to uploading an image. I cannot get the Earl of Snowdon's "|image = " to display. I've also tried cutting and pasting in an image from another wikipedia entry and that doesn't work either. The image is here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Earl_of_Snowdon_Arms.svg Could it have something to do with me uploading to wiki commons instead of wikipedia?

Fixed that problem. For some absurd reason, it needs a |notes = field before the image will display. ~~I'm afraid the image's a bit big, but I might be able to change that with my *awesome programming skills*.~~ For the record, commons very rarely makes any difference. References are needed as soon as possible, really, if you have trouble tell me. (It helps if you add a notice on my talk to tell me that you've replied/need help/whatever.) What does the book actually say/show - images, text, what - it may just make a difference? Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 18:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed image size issues myself. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually an absurd reason. But it is the reason. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're a saint! Thanks for fixing that. I'll try it out on Zara Phillips' page shortly. My source for Snodwon (and Zara Phillips) is "Lines of Succession" by Jiri Louda. There is an illustration of both these people's arms on page 31, table 9. I'm sure this is an authoritative work that has been cited elsewhere. I saw it on a list somehwere in the heraldry section of wikipedia... but I can't recall where. There is no blazon mentioned in the book, but I have recreated the images faithfully. How would I reference this? As for Linley, I don't know where the information originally came from. I saw it on his page and thought, "I think I could illustrate that." Thanks again for your patience. Its nice to be able to help fill in these tiny gaps in the royal family's heraldry section.

(undent) Looking good. For the reference, may I suggest cite book? You'll want something like this (ignore nowiki tags, they just stop it actually turning into a citation):

{{cite book|last = Louda |first = Jiri |title = Lines of Succession |date = [Put in the publication date here] |page = 31; table 9}}

I don't how much you know about this, so I'll say it: you'll need to enclose that in <ref> and </ref> and put that after the closing punctuation, with no space in between. I suggest you put it after the notes column in the infoboxes, since we don't want to suggest the blazon has a reliable source. (I'll look for one, but I'm not holding out hope just yet.)

Oh and remember to sign your posts. No-one get really annoyed, but you know what they say about bad habits... - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 08:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's four tildes after your message (~~~~). For me, the tilde key is above the hash symbol. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 12:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, your help has been most valuable. The Zara Phillips arms box is not great at the moment, but I'll find a blazon and get it in asap. I'm not sure what the rules are re: heraldry on wikipedia. Technically, if we have a good source on the illustration, couldn't someone just work out the blazon? We could then use the source of the illustration as the source of the blazon. I rather thought that was the point of the whole blazon/illustration system.

You're welcome to create blazons for British arms, as consensus currently stands. There's rather a long discussion over this, which I won't go into. What you shouldn't do is reference the blazon, because it's not the blazon in the source (it's in policy, but no point boring you with that). You can always describe what they are in the box, instead of a blazon. No complaints there. I suggest that's what you do to Zara Phillips if you don't find a blazon quickly, else there's no need for an infobox, rather than the image alone. On Wikipedia we have a be bold, revert, discuss policy. This means if you think you can help, do it. The worst thing that can happen is someone revert it, and then they should leave a note either on the article's talk or your talk explaining why what you did is wrong. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 13:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Earlier today, I hit the jackpot, finding a blazon in a reliable source (at a library - the book it's from costs £275!), which is on Lord Snowdon. Copy across to child if you have time or whatever, but just make sure you're not implying that source backs up all of Viscount Linley's arms, because it doesn't. Anyhow, good, and I'll remember that book in future. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Royalty

Hello! It's quite simple: Infobox Royalty is used in articles about persons who hold a royal title (style) either by marriage or by birth. Zara and Peter were never created princes, so they are not royal. They are not members of the royal family; it was discussed here several times. Place in the line of succession is irrelevant. Surtsicna (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see yourself, all arguements about who belongs to the royal family and who doesn't ended with no clear conclusion. Anyway, the issue is irrelevant for the usage of Infobox Royalty, which is used for persons who have a royal title or style. I am not sure why you're mentioning the article about Zara Phillips - it's using Infobox Person now, doesn't it? Surtsicna (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's what you meant! Since neither Philip nor Zara are included in the template, the template needn't be used in their articles. However, if you think it's better to use the template in their articles (even though the template doesn't link to their articles), I won't mind. Surtsicna (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Armorial achievements

There are a couple of separate issues here.

The three statements are true:

Free as in speech (that's not necesserily copyright-free, since most authors release some rights and not all)- i.e. not non-free - images are better than those requiring non-free rationales

Svg images (of achievements) are almost always better than jpg or others, assuming similar quality

Fuller achievements are better than just the shield, to varying degrees.

Shields are fine on their own, they are better than nothing. That's the rule here. If you can't do supporters, which I understand (it might be worth finding similar supporters and copying them over, which, if you credit the source, is allowed under CC-BY-SA), then a shield is still worthwhile. There are lots of shields alone on Wikipedia, including most Royal Family arms. If you're playing off one of the above against another, then you've got to make a decision. Replacing a jpg of a full achievement (non-free) with an svg shield is probably not worth it, because you've lost information. Common sense prevails (mostly!). - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 20:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed once again

{{helpme}} I'm trying to upload a coat of arms for Charles Darwin. I've loaded the file into wikicommons and I'm using the template someone provided me many months ago, but it still doesn't work. Any assistance would be much appreciated. The template was first used for the Arms of the Earl of Snowdon (Anthony Eden) on his biography page. I've got the template on Darwin's page, but the appropriate image won't load. Argh!

You need to add something for "notes=", otherwise it won't show. Regards So Why 12:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't easy to figure out. I've tweaked Template:Infobox_COA_wide#Documentation so it's a little more obvious. Josh Parris 12:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To whom were these arms granted? Kittybrewster ☎ 10:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had quite a lengthy conversation over on the Charles Darwin talk page. The general consensus was to put the arms over on the Darwin-Wedgewood family page, which I have done. I've included a bit of sourcing as well. They were granted to Reginald Darwin, of Fern, Derbyshire, a cousin of Charles.

I have no problem with that. What bothers me is (a) that a Cambridge college is using an individual's arms and (2) that there is an implication that the arms pass to more than one person. I am uneasy, I guess. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin College seems to have different arms (the one on their own web page looks better) though they use some bits from Reginald Darwin's arms. Note that the college itself includes property owned by Charles Galton Darwin who as a KBE would have probably had his own arms which might well include some elements from other Darwin arms and those incorporated when the College's arms were designed. I will note that the next Garter King of Arms or chief herald in Britain went to Darwin, I doubt their arms are illegitimate.--Erp (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I agree that Reginald's arms appear to have been inheritted by a number of people which cannot be true according to the standards of heraldry. Two sources use the wording I have included and was thus unsure what to do. It is clear that Darwin's cousin Reginald was the original grantee, from there, it can be safely assumed that his direct heirs inheritted them exclusively. As for Darwin College, those arms were granted in 1966 as a complete work in and of itself. (With obvious allusions to the two principal benefactors.) I replaced the rendition of the arms used on the College wiki page because the image was not in the public domain and was not an svg. Is there a particular problem you see with them? If so I will attempt to fix them, however they are currently rendered according to the grant. "Darwin impaling Rayne (Per fess dancetty Azure and Gules, a caduceus between in chief two roses Or), all within a gold bordure." Maccauly, Gregor (2009). "The Arms of Charles Darwin". The New Zealand Armorist: The Journal of the Heraldry Society of New Zealand. 112 (Spring 2009): 12–14. A1 Aardvark (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the gold bordure might be too wide to be visually pleasing in the Darwin College arms in the wiki article but I realize it is suppose to be a certain size. It also seems quite likely Charles Darwin never used a coat of arms though at least two of his sons did (note that Darwin College is named after the family not just Charles since several other Darwins were prominent at Cambridge). on source has some info might it might be duplicate of what you've got. --Erp (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Erp, I used the wikipedia standard borderline, its just so much easier that way. lol. As for the arms, you are correct, they were granted after his death so he didn't use them. His family doesn't seem to have followed the proper rules for arms much over the past two centuries, which may be why they seem to be associated with more people than they should be. At any rate, we don't have to worry about them in terms of the college because those arms were granted specifically to the college and are thus legally distinct from anything anyone else may have or may have the right (or lack thereof) to use. :)

RSC coat of arms

This is far from File:Royal Society Arms.svg introduced by this edit. Why? Materialscientist (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, these are the arms of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Virtually all of the Royal Societies have different arms. The "original" Royal Society's arms are those discussed in the article already. I just illustrated them. If you want, I can try to make the RSC's arms too. Admittedly a larger image might be helpful. Cheers. A1 Aardvark (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there A1 Aardvark, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:A1 Aardvark/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Help

I've replied on the James Cook matter. As far as Ann Meekitjuk Hanson: whilst I believe on Commons that there has been little valid reason given for deletion, I think it's not your best work. If you do want to save it - and I think you stand a reasonable chance - you may wish to ask more thoroughly why it's being deleted. Misrepresentation often crops up in fair use discussions here, I don't know how far this applies to freely licensed images on Commons. I don't think it is a misrepresentation in any case. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 14:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HV (Talk) is the only place one can contact those interest in heraldry. Commons:Deletion policy is Commons' deletion policy, it says the 7 days is usual for a deletion request. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very little can be done, I've checked and there are lots of open requests from April; I'd leave it. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 15:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Cook

Hey, I think there are some comments that may be to your interest at Talk:James Cook. Thanks! Connormah (talk | contribs) 23:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. It seems that the editor contesting the addition may have been a tad bit misguided but, by my judgement, it all looks good. You may want to address the Tamfang's comment regarding the stars, however. Keep up the good work. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion request at Commons shouldn't yield deletion. 'Unencyclopedic' is an invalid reason for deletion at Commons, and I don't see any reason to believe that the Cook CoA is unencyclopedic. You've got my support for keeping the image. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the OR noticeboard, it's really just for outside feedback, it shouldn't be really anything to sweat about. As said above, keep up the good work. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image cited by Connormah matches my memory of one in Boutell's Heraldry, having estoiles with (iirc) detached points between the six wavy rays. "Polar star" isn't a standard term, so far as I know. Perhaps someone at Wikiproject Heraldry can suggest an even more authoritative source for an image. —Tamfang (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not in love with the arrowheads on the path. I heard once that arrows as a pointing-icon first appeared about 1830! —Tamfang (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, A1 Aardvark. You have new messages at Connormah's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a reply (and question :)) on my talk. Connormah (talk | contribs) 04:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Request Reply

Hi Aardvark,

Well, I'm not completely sure whether I'm correct or not. Firstly all the works by the Canadian heraldic authority seems to be under copyright, such as the modern Coat of Arms of Canada (granted 1994). But in the UK all works by the College of Arms seems to be free, like a work by another government ministry. So the conclusion that came from my simple mind was that all Canadian blazons were off limits. To be honest with you I haven't really researched either quite fully. What I said to Connormah was that I was unwilling even to create, even from scratch, a COA with an uncertain copyright status that might get deleted. So don't hold on to my words too much, like I said to Connormah I usually stick to historical stuff so I don't get this problem often. Sodacan (talk) 08:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking up the context — The usual rule applicable to armory is that a particular depiction may be under copyright but the design itself is not, so if you create an illustration from scratch you ought to be clear. —Tamfang (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Middleton

As Princess William of Wales after the 29th of April (assuming she is not issued a supporter, however if she is then I will reupload over the image).
Simple lozenge
Stylistic lozenge based on the College of Arms' redition

Here you go. Sodacan (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You, sir, are a genius! Thanks very much! A1 Aardvark (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Pratchett's coat of arms

Hi A1 Aardvark. In the blazon of the CoA you added for Terry Pratchett, it says "Sable an ankh between four Roundels in saltire each issuing Argent." My Heraldry is not up to much, but I understand "Sable an Ankh ..." to imply the Ankh is sable, when it is actually Argent. What am I missing here? Thanks Xtal42 (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]