Jump to content

Talk:Ecclesiastical heraldry/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

1969 Supression

Catholic theological politics is not my area of knowledge but perhaps the vague 'supression' of certain heraldic features mentioned in the article could be filled out. Why exactly after such a long time of use was the decision made in '69? Alci12 22:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It was one aspect of a general move to simplicity. Various other privileges of rank in clothing were removed or simplified around the same time. Some of the application to heraldry might be attributed to Archbishop Bruno Heim, an expert in heraldry who disliked complex coats of arms with many elements. He was a friend of Pope John XXIII, who also had an interest in heraldry. Gimmetrow 23:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The 1969 document gave very little space to questions of heraldry, just these few words: "The use of coats-of-arms by Cardinals and Bishops is permitted. The shield of the coat-of-arms must be simple and clear. The use of the crozier and mitre in the coat-of-arms is suppressed. Cardinals may place their coats-of-arms on the exterior of the churches of their Title or Diaconate." No more than that.
I wonder on what grounds it is stated as a positive fact that the mitre "remains on (Catholic) corporate arms." The arms of the Archdiocese of Toronto no longer have the mitre. If other dioceses have kept the mitre, perhaps it is just that they have not been updated since 1969. I think the most that can be said on the basis of the text of the 1969 Instruction is that the use of the mitre on such arms has not been expressly forbidden.
I see that the link to the 1969 Instruction that I put in the article at two points where the Instruction was mentioned, so as to facilitate consultation of the text, has been removed, so that the text can be found only by searching among the sources quoted at the end.
I also think it would be useful to have a reference at that point to the illustration already in the article that shows how two hats were in fact put on episcopal coats of arms before 1969. In my poor memory of usage of that time, the two hats where practically always used. "Often", as now in the article, may be true of previous centuries, but it is far too weak a word for the middle of the twentieth. The text, as it now stands, may actually give the impression that before 1969 Catholic bishops normally put only a mitre above the shield, in line with the custom that Anglican bishops have kept. I think very few did so - apart perhaps from (Anglican-influenced or ecumenically-minded?) bishops of Christchurch in New Zealand. Putting a reference to the illustration that shows the then almost universal use of both hats would, I think, be helpful for understanding why the 1969 Instruction thought it worthwhile making a regulation to put an end to an effect that to some will have seemed quite ridiculous. Lima 14:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

there's a spelling mistake in the article

can i fix it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.6.44.224 (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Sure, or say what it is. Gimmetrow 01:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

How about Orthodox Ecclesiastical heraldry?

--Dojarca 01:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

See Ecclesiastical heraldry#Mantle. Gimmetrow 02:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

congrats on no vandalism for 2 hours

properbly the first time. congrats —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.6.44.224 (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Junk

I can't seem to find out how to remove the junk links that someone has added to this article at the end of the intro. (sorry, I'm new at this). Can someone else do so? Thanks, 89.100.160.110 18:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Better quality Coat of Arms

Great coat of arms of the state of Carinthia, Austria.

Four of the Coat of Arms etc in this article are, um, imperfectly rendered black-and-white drawings, and they bring down the "punch" of this article. There is some great SVG work being done on Coats of Arms, such as the drawing on the right or this fine CoA. Perhaps these artists could rework the plain ones shown here. Just a thought, MapMaster 18:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And it's a good thought. Color SVG images which better illustrate the concepts would be great. The B/W images come from public domain works, so they are available and have no copyright issues. Gimmetrow 07:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Germanic / German

Why Germanic heraldry and not German heraldry? Isn't Germanic a lingual term respective only for ancient history?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.183.213.182 (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2007

Presumably Germanic is meant to label those features shared by German, Dutch and Scandinavian heraldry. —Tamfang (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

repeating footnotes

Huh? Why on earth did User:Gimmetrow undo my consolidation of identical footnotes? Did I break something else as I was doing that? —Tamfang (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It was an unnecessary change of style. This article developed without named refs. Gimmetrow 22:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Style? The naming is invisible to the reader, except that it saves a bit of space on the page. It may be untrue to the article's history, in some sense, but that seems a strange reason to object! Well, different strokes. (Nobody complained when I did the same to other articles; perhaps their readers have no sense of history.) —Tamfang (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
More likely, their history isn't dominated by a single editor with a strong preference on that point. —Tamfang (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I had forgotten that we'd already had this skirmish. I ask again: Why do Gimmetrow and Gimmetoo prefer to see seven copies of the same reference rather than one? To undo other people's efforts at least three times so far, I'd expect a stronger reason than lack of necessity. Without a better reason than that, the undoing is itself also an unnecessary change of style. Well, I do have better reasons: the convenience of the reader, and efficiency of future maintenance. Accordingly I revert. (I won't have time tomorrow to break 3RR.) —Tamfang (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CITEVAR, the presumption is to retain the existing style. The established style is easier for readers and much easier to maintain. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
"There is no precedent for anything until it is done for the first time." —Lord Mildew: Doggett v Port of London Authority
The style of citation is the same whether a given citation is shown seven times or once. On the question of ease, our opinions differ which means you're wrong. I wish other editors would chime in. —Tamfang (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
As much as I agree with the change, this is what CITEVAR is for and so it shouldn't be changed without agreement. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Consolidated references make more sense. There is no point in unnecessary repetition. I deplore the blind use of stupid guidelines as clubs to beat other editors with. → ROUX ₪ 10:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I would agree, Roux, but many previous discussions have confirmed that the community does not think CITEVAR is a stupid guideline. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I don't like CITEVAR and I would prefer consolidated. The consensus is not so clear on these issues. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Guidelines are by definition not policy. Using them as such is stupid bullshit designed to support WP:ILIKEIT. → ROUX ₪ 10:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
You'd need an overturning consensus, and, whilst there wasn't above, there is increasingly one. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I see nothing in CITEVAR relevant to this issue. The number of repetitions of a reference is not an element of its style as discussed there, that is, the amount and format of bibliographic information provided within each footnote. At most one can find a very strained analogy between adding ink to disguise the similarity of two references, on one hand, and subtracting ink to conceal relatively unimportant data like the city of publication. —Tamfang (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Nothing? Really? There are a number of issues listed as "included", which does not exclude other issues. A general principle (in the same section) that if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
"defer to the style used by the first major contributor...unless a consensus for a change can be reached at Talk" WP:CITEVAR should never be used as an argument for stopping a discussion. Achowat (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Is your position that CITEVAR's scope includes everything that it doesn't expressly exclude? —Tamfang (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
CITEVAR is the principle of ENGVAR applied to "citation systems, styles and methods". WP:NAMEDREFS seems to me clearly a method, and its effects a style. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This article does not used named references. It developed that way because it is easier for readers - it produces sequential references - and because it is far easier to maintain - no possibility of ref name conflicts. It also renders faster, in my experience. This article does not use one reference 30 times - there is little to gain and much to lose from "combining" references. If you want to change something, you need to provide strongly persuasive and cogent reasons. Consensus is not based on numbers, but on reasons. You have not provided any reasons other than your own preference. And that's why it's a style issue - confirmed by the completely incorrect accusation of "vandlalism" for removing these inappropriate edits. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ref name conflicts are a stupid, rare, and meaningless reason. Please explain exactly how it is easier for readers. I'd hold my breath waiting for you to come up with something, but that seems unwise in terms of my life expectancy. Rendering speed is dependent on such an enormous number of variables that the potential minute change in speed is a non issue. Nor have you stated why there is 'much to lose.' → ROUX ₪ 12:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I concur with the seeming prevailing side that we should consolidate the references. We're talking about what is easier for an uninformed reader to deal with, and having the same document linked to in 5 or 6 different number references simply creates a unnecessarily long References section. The argument that we need an overwhelming consensus, or anything of the like, seems to be abhorrent to the policy (not guideline, or essay, or any such thing) that Consensus can change. The current consensus always holds greater weight than an existing consensus, even if the former consensus was, strictly speaking, stronger (either in number of editors or strength of argument). Achowat (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
You are seeking to make a change. Why? Roux, I am tired of the personal attacks. Discuss the issue or don't bother. Why do you care? References that follow in the same order as they appear are clearly easier for a reader to follow. If you disagree, then you need to provide reasons which are persuasive. Named references are nowhere required, nor are "combined references". Change for the sake of change is pointless and disruptive. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I haven't made any personal attacks. I have, however, demolished your 'reasons,' and you have failed to address a single point I have made. Consensus can change = policy. Policy > guideline. And I do not believe for one moment that such a small change results in a 2000% increase in rendering time. → ROUX ₪ 06:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
By all means, Roux, keep insulting, continue to ignore my replies, and keep omitting any cogent reasons for changing. All that is really well-designed to persuade and convince. Likewise, best to keep your own view of what consensus means - treat it purely as a vote and engage in behaviours noted as impeding the formation of consensus. Any further replies from you that fail to provide a positive, cogent reason for changing the long-standing style of this article will be ignored. Gimmetoo (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
You would be wise to look up 'projection.' I did, in fact, address the points you made. You haven't provided a single believable reason why unconsolidated references are somehow easier for readers--do you think they just sit there and read the refs section? Your assertion that there is a 2000% increase in render time using consolidated refs is frankly laughable and thus dismissed. You are ignoring that policy trumps guideline. Ref name conflicts are so rare as to be irrelevant. Out-of-order numbers appearing at the end of a sentence is something so easy to avoid that there isn't even any point in addressing it. → ROUX ₪ 11:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Yet again, you have studiously avoided giving any positive reason for changing. At this point, that constitutes evidence that there is no positive reason for changing. Thank you, Roux. As to your statements supposedly in response to me, if "pollicy trumps guideline", then please point me to the policy that requires changing this article, with specific mention of the issues involved. I know you can't. You can only point to "consensus can change", while conveniently ignoring that consensus is not a vote, and that the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. So far, it looks to me that you just want to change based on personal preference; you need to provide a positive reason for changing. However, if you agree an issue exists, then you agree is an issue, no matter how rare you may believe it is. And your last statement is unclear - are you saying the ref mentioned below should be split and rendered [6][39], or that it should not have been split in the first place? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It's so cute that you whine about personal attacks and civility while acting poorly yourself. Ditch the hypocrisy, k? Also I should have thought it was blindingly obvious that I was in agreement with Tamfang, but since apparently that wasn't clear: I agree with Tamfang, you are wrong, and despite asking me to state why I think you are wrong, you have failed to respond to what I have said. There is, as you well know--you're just getting into cheap rhetorical tricks here--no policy requiring that this article be changed. However, there is one that quite neatly knocks your attempt to enforce a guideline as policy into a cocked hat. Yes, that ref should be split because it covers two different though overlapping sections of the same cited work. Whether or not I agree that an issue exists is completely irrelevant when that issue pretty much never ever happens. Again, you know this and you're just playing cheap semantic games for.. well, I won't speculate why. Is that clear enough for you? Are you actually going to respond substantively to any points I have made--most especially your utterly absurd claim that consolidated refs cause a 2000% increase in load times, a claim I notice you have suddenly backed away from, I can only wonder why--or are you going to continue whining that I haven't responded to anything? Again, you want to look up the concept of projection. → ROUX ₪ 15:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
What are the positive reasons for changing the article, Roux? To me, your position appears to be personal preference. Regarding the ref mentioned above - it does not involve the "same cited work", and I gave a reason for not splitting the ref into one ref for each source. Regarding load times, I did the tests and the results were as I said. You interpreted that was a 2000% percent increase. I made no claim it was multiplicative, though it was about 3.5 seconds longer. I repeated the test and it was about a second longer. But the load time is not my main argument at all, and your focus on it risked losing the main point - that the style developed this way for various reasons and you have not provided a positive reason for changing. A key principle of the Manual of Style is: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason". Gimmetoo (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
You had claimed specific times for rendering, 0.2sec in your version vs 4 sec with consolidated refs. That is a 2000% increase. How fascinating that I can no longer find that claim on this page. Such blatant dishonesty means I can now quite simply dismiss anything you have to say as 'saying anything to get my way.' End of discussion. → ROUX ₪ 17:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
That's literally a 3.8 sec difference. It's not "blatant dishonesty" to retract a statement that I found to have a higher variance than initially thought, especially when it is a side point. On the other hand, it is difficult for me to discuss your postiive reasons for a change, if you don't provide them. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Gimmetrow, you seem to spend a lot of time arguing that reasons weren't given, but yet only fall back on 'this is the way it is now and you need a good reason to change it'. There may well be a good reason to keep the page as you'd like it, but I guess those of us who stumbled-upon this discussion would like to hear your reasoning, especially given that it seems so counter-intuitive to many editors (myself included). Achowat (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The guideline is WP:CITEVAR, which (among other reasons) exists to stop these time-wasting arguments about mostly arbitrary decisions. The fact is this article has had this style, stable, for years. Every article has different dynamics and this style has suited this article well; it fits this article. It's a lightweight, easy-to-maintain form. Many sentences are supported by more than one source; these sources are bundled, which provides clarity and avoids cite stacks. (Cite stacks would make the refs harder to follow.) Cite bundling makes most refs unique, and so there is little to gain from "combining" the few others. A simple, clean sequence of numbers results, which is easy to correlate with the text - and very easy to maintain. And the article is well-developed, even a FA. Why change the style now? Surely there must be some clearly persuasive, indisputable reason that this article must be changed to justify calling my edits vandalism and my reasons stupid and meaningless. So provide it. Persuade me. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Stability, when it results solely from one person's stubbornness, is no argument. Repetition, even if necessary, is not "lightweight".  You keep saying that a strict sequence of reference numbers is convenient; how? Must we presume that the reader cannot click a link nor match a number to a number? Must we presume that future editors lack the wit to choose ref names wisely? On the other hand, is there a good reason to make things inconvenient for the reader who wants to find every place where (say) the Catholic Encyclopedia is cited? —Tamfang (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I think a reader interested in that could use F-search, but even if for the sake of argument that that particular aspect of the current system were "inconvenient", there are aspects of your system that make other desirable things "inconvenient". Gimmetoo (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a reader could use F-search, but a casual user can be forgiven for not knowing that it exists (while not knowing what the blue numbers are for is well beyond our duty to accommodate).
I continue to cling to the hope that someday, if I ask politely enough and often enough, you'll say more clearly how repetition is more convenient to the reader than consolidation. —Tamfang (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Snide remark noted. Is it easier for a reader to click on one blue link and be taken to a list of three references, or to have to click on three of them to get the same three references? Gimmetoo (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Does this mean you'll let the consolidation stand, next time, if no compound references are broken up in the process? —Tamfang (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
How do we tell an article that was intentionally given repeated references from one in which references are repeated because editors didn't notice the repetition, didn't know how to consolidate them, or had more urgent demands on their time?
My imagination is good enough to conjure up someone reading the article in hardcopy and scrutinizing each reference in turn; for such a reader, sequential references might be easier. I can't readily imagine why anyone would do so, or complain much about a device that's clearly more convenient for other readers. The footnote numbers are blue for a reason.
I can also, more readily, imagine someone copying out the refs section with the intention of going to a library and looking up each one. At some point this reader will want to check for duplicates. Why not make it automatic?
"You have not provided any reasons other than your own preference." False. My comment of 3 January, above, stated two reasons – admittedly sketchy, but more than the other side had ever given.
Calling something 'vandalism' does not classify it as a style issue. Usually, vandalism either removes information or adds false or irrelevant information; that's not a matter of style. For example, Gimmetwin's action – previously unsupported, for thirty months, by any overt attempt at rationalization – conceals the information that two references are identical. —Tamfang (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
"How do we tell"? One way would be to ask. Another way would be to listen to those with knowledge of the history of this article.
Your "device" is not "clearly more convenient for other readers". You may think it is, but that doesn't make it "clearly" so. Can you appreciate that?
"At some point this reader will want to check for duplicates" Perhaps. But were this article written in standard parenthetic references, that wouldn't even be a consideration.
And if it were published in a text-only format, we wouldn't have to discuss the selection and placement of illustrations. —Tamfang (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
On January 3 you claimed as "reasons", "the convenience of the reader, and efficiency of future maintenance". As these reasons were unsupported assertions, and they have were explicitly challenged, and no justification has been given, they stand as your own personal unjustified opinions. You are required to provide a substantial reason for a change. On the other hand, I did justify and explain the reasons behind the current system, although I was not required to do. Do you acknowledge that?
You had not given any justification other than "stability" until I jerked your chain hard enough, and you still haven't said how a strict sequence of numbers is more convenient to the reader than consolidation. —Tamfang (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Calling something "vandalism" when it is not must be rooted in something. Nothing is "concealed" - all reference information is there in the long-standing style of this article. Please justify your claim of "vandalism" with reference to policy and guideline, or retract it. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Your way, it is difficult to see that a reference is repeated; I don't mind admitting that "conceal" may not be the best possible word for this obscuring of information. Your willful and repeated destruction of the information created by other people's work is clearly not motivated as vandalism, so okay, I won't use the word again. —Tamfang (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
"Your willful and repeated destruction of the information created by other people's work..." Willful desruction? This is your way to rectify a personal attack after being warned and then asked to retract? Fascinating. And your repeated removal of work created by other people is completely justified, I take it? I also don't like the "interruption" of my statement above, as it impedes replies. Parenthetic refs are perfectly acceptable on wiki, and were an option for this article. Do you think your comment about "duplicates" would justify removing parenthetic refs from a well-developed article? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
As I already told you, criticism of another editor's actions is not a personal attack. Is it a personal attack to express the opinion that a certain action destroyed more information than it restored? Is it a personal attack to observe that someone has done something at least three times, and intentionally?
Presumably you have something in mind by "your repeated removal of work created by other people", but I don't know what. I have more than once removed material that went into excessive detail, or wandered too far from the subject matter of the surrounding text; sometimes I paste such passages to the talk page, sometimes I don't.
The 'interrupted' style (note btw that I did not interrupt your paragraphs) allows precise context without quotation; it's not obvious to me how it "impedes replies". Nevertheless, I'll refrain from inflicting it on you henceforth.
If by "parenthetic refs" you mean putting the refs within the text rather than at the bottom: If such references were numerous enough or bulky enough to interfere with the flow of reading, I'd consider a change desirable, regardless of historic stability. But I'd discuss it first. —Tamfang (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I asked you to retract your personal attack. Your statement that you "won't use that word again" does not constitute a retraction. Gimmetoo (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
If my withdrawal of the allegation of vandalism wasn't explicit enough, I now retract it explicitly. The word was hastily and poorly chosen. (Next time I edit the article I'll include a retraction in my edit summary, so that it's on the same page as the offense.) And I won't even ask you to retract the baseless allegations of "personal attack". —Tamfang (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR specifically suggests editors who disagree with the current style to take it to talk and build a consensus. Citing that as a way to argue against an attempt to build that consensus is misguided. Now, in the sense of full disclosure, I don't really have a horse in this fight. I don't really care one way or the other. It seems odd to me to list the same source, the same page of the same source, something like 7 times. It seems easier for a normal reader to see that the reference on the third-to-last paragraph is the same as the one from the first paragraph. Otherwise, I fear we give undue weight to the one source by, essentially, pretending it is really six or seven different sources. I'd ask you to expound on your points that the current system is of lighter weight or easier to maintain than the proposed system. (Honestly, I don't really know what you mean by that) Achowat (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Look at Ref #44 at the end of the Cross section. It refers to two sources, with Heim being the primary source. It can be modified simply by changing that reference which is directly attached to that text. (The same thing would be true of simple parenthetic refs, which would also generally work for this article.) What does it look like in the other version? It has [39][6]. If a reader wants to look up the sources for that sentence, the reader needs to look at two locations in the refs that are far apart. Some readers are confused by non-sequential ref numbers. Splitting and named refs also make maintenance more difficult - if, let's say, one looks at Heim and finds the page number should be different, one would have to check if that page were used in other repeated references from Heim. There are also bots that "order" such ref stacks numerically, and would put [6] before [39], which would be inappropriate in this case. There is also an inconsistency that refs like Ref #54 are not split. If they were all split to have one source per ref tag, there would be a few more refs. And there are ambiguous choices - should Fox-Davies p.466 be "combined" with Fox-Davies p.466-467? In this article, it was simpler to just list the sources that go with each sentence in a single ref. (Also, in this article, sequential references result in a page that routinely serves faster than tamfang's version.) Gimmetoo (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
A reasonable argument. One I don't necessarily find compelling, but reasonable nonetheless. However, the utter lack of civility between the two of you is, frankly, deplorable. Personal attacks are inexcusable, and I'm sure that's kept a few interested editors out of this discussion. Remember that consensus isn't about convincing each other but about convincing the other editors. While I don't find your arguments compelling, it's likely that someone else might, and it might be a good idea for all three of us to stay off this Talk for a day or two and see who else would care to comment.Achowat (talk)
Why would [6][39] be inappropriate? The answer to this question might belong in the footnote! — It's true that I didn't bother splitting every ref that cites two sources; I did so only when it would save, you guessed it, a repetition. Someone who cares more than I do about consistency for its own sake can finish the job. —Tamfang (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Because the reference that ended up as #39 is the primary reference for that sentence, it should go first. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
To show what a fair-minded kind of fellow I am, I acknowledge the point that changing a citation is more of a chore when one must check all references to that citation, some of which may need not to be changed. Obviously I don't find it compelling, but there it is. —Tamfang (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Luther's Seal

I'm surprised that there is no mention of the Luther rose in this article. Luther's Seal is one of the most famous ecclesiastical heraldry insignias ever. The use of the rose is interesting, as is the red heart, which was protest against mysticism. "The heart retains its natural color" of humanly red instead of becoming a holy white or gold. I'm not expert on heraldry, but if you can find a way to add in a reference, I think that would help round out this article. Thanks.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It was mentioned before. Now in the history section. Gimmetrow 03:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecclesiastical heraldry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ecclesiastical heraldry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ecclesiastical heraldry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ecclesiastical_heraldry/Archive_1&oldid=1038428440"