User talk:Xanderliptak

Archives

2009

Ethiopian Review

I'm afraid Xanderliptak, that we unfortunatly can no longer claim that ethiopian review is not a reliable source as the admins on the reliable sources noticeboard have ruled that it is suitible to be used as a reliable source[1]. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms vs. emblem

I know the difference between coat of arms and emblems. However, I've just recently had a lengthy discussion about the colloquial vs. scientific and rational naming of topics and was told that for the title of an article Wikipedia uses the term that is most commonly found in reliable English language sources. So as "coat of arms" is what the layman would call it, I guess this is what is found in most grey literature and therefore exceeds the number of topical literature calling it an emblem. That aside, I'm totally fine with calling the thing an emblem and naming the article so, because that is what it is after all. You might also want to ask for the navbox to be recoded because it is based on the standard phrase "Coat or arms of <country>", which is why "Emblem of <country>" won't be marked in bold text when you use that template in such an article. De728631 (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On another note I noticed that you created Emblem of Eritrea as a new article. It would have been much better to simply move the Coat of arms article over there to maintain its history. De728631 (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia coat of arms

My version follows the Coat of arms of Germany model. Which gives a brief background of the coa used and then displays it below. There were other changes including the addition of the correct infobox. Also BiH was never in the soviet union. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 16:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply showing you what I was aiming for. My version divides the paragraphs and the COAs in accordance to the specific historical time periods in which they were used, not by styles like "soviet". The coat of arms used during the Austro-Hungarian occupation alone has three and shouldn't be bunched with two others that aren't related to it. Your argument is purely about aesthetics. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly done? factual errors? Are you even familiar with the history of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Stop omitting images simply to have one row and no "dead space". ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 00:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too short? Sections are created by topic not based on length. The images under the AH section are not redundant as they are COA's of three separate entities (two provinces and one condominium). The only other alternative is to present them by image stacking or as you did by omitting one and bunching the remaining two with unrelated COAs. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 01:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the changes you reverted that I made regarding the actual history of BiH, namely that occupation occured in 1878 not annexation. TBH heraldry is not my strong point and from what I gathered the flag was changed after annexation and I assumed the COA was also. The dutch Fojnica armorial is the same coat arms only slightly modified, I figured it was better to include where its relevant than to just ignore it all together. ◅ PRODUCER _(TALK) 04:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox heraldic achievement

What are you looking to achieve with the use of this infobox? I ask only because we've got the Infobox coat of arms which is well used throughout the project, and works fine. If there are improvements to the status quo, I suggest they would be better made as alterations to the current coat of arms infobox, since this will automatically updated across all uses. In any case, I suggest a moriatum on its use until the issue's raised at a discussion forum of some sort, probably WT:HV. This way, we can see what the best plan would be. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the tone of the above message, it's not what I intended. Well, as you can see, Template:Infobox coat of arms only requires an image and title (it would look too odd without); you can have any combination. Why do you think it is oddly built? It looks to me like a standard infobox layout. On a specific note though, the armiger is not always obvious. For example, the Royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom. As I mention, if it's obvious, you don't need to use the armiger= field in the template. The full list of possible fields includes suitable places to include mantling, coronets, etc. if relevant to the infobox. You are right in saying not all emblems are heraldic in nature, but for those that are (Coat of arms of..., for example), the current infobox works well. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Sudan

When you change the name of an article, it's incumbent upon you to make sure that the contents of the article are properly synchronized with the new name... AnonMoos (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Coat of arms infobox

At current, Infobox Coat of arms (ICOA) runs: |armiger = |year_adopted = |crest = |torse = |shield = |supporters = |compartment = |motto = |orders = |other_elements = |earlier_versions = |use = which is some reflection of the physical arrangement of the items. Including additional field(s) like "mantling" or "crown/coronet" would be simple, and, in my opinion, considerably better than any large change in how we use infoboxes in the project. If anyone believes empty fields are necessary (or even preferable), I, and I imagine most of WP:HV, think they are wrong. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 18:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problem per se with the new infobox, except that I think it is, as I think we are agreed upon, better suited to non-heraldic devices, most commonly emblems. For that reason I think it would be best called "Infobox emblem" and used where the device is non-heraldic. I'll see if I can put a supporting note in the ICOA documentation to the effect that the fields are optional. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms

The edit your reverted here was distinguishing between European heraldry and the heraldry of other cultures. If you are of such a strong belief that this distinction is not necessary I'm curious as to why you are not editing the out the non-European references. Tiderolls 02:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my user talk. Tiderolls 02:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms/armorial

Whilst "armorial" is a better term that "coat of arms" for those including extra features, it is not used on Wikipedia other than to discuss the use of the terms themselves. I just thought I let you know, and to suggest you don't change from one to the other other than with an additional circumstance. There are two reasons for the status quo, firstly that the common name is "coat of arms" and secondly that it is this term that is widely used in reliable sources; of course, "armorial" is, as I say, not wrong (except in page titles, where common name gains additional weight). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a noun, armorial means a list of coats. —Tamfang (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Habsburg-Lorraine

What you think about new article Habsburg-Lorraine (now it is only redirect to House of Lorraine)? I think, that deserves own article and can be created from articles House of Lorraine and House of Habsburg.--Yopie (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Words as words

FYI, see WP:ITALIC#Words as words:

Use italics when writing about words as words, or letters as letters (to indicate the use–mention distinction).

(Nothing in that section about foreign words.) — Also I think you misunderstood the phrase term of art (which is an example of itself). —Tamfang (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Streator Township High School

I have reverted your redirect regarding this article. Please see: Talk:Streator_Township_High_School or Talk:Streator,_Illinois#Streator_Township_High_School for the explanation. Ljmajer (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Bachelor cut and paste move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Knight Bachelor a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you.

NB. Incidentally, you will need a source for your capitalisation version and for it not being a "proper title." Regards, Woody (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Emblem of the Comoros has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you.

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]