Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gimmetrow (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 14 August 2006 (arch). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• See User:Gimmetrow for the userpage. (Warning: may contain test scripting)
• Permalink Archive August 14

WP:IFD

You're welcome. Probably the first time I've been thanked for closing an WP:IFD day. Jkelly 04:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dynabars.js (from MediaWiki talk:monobook.js)

Hee, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I've played with the dynabars code a bit at work (intranet, no direct link, sorry. :( ) and the new version is quite a bit faster, though quite honestly I haven't used it terribly much. The big improvement that I've noticed is in the responsiveness (my work machine is sloooow!), though quite honestly I haven't used many dynamic bars on one page. Have you considered writing a "loading test" page where we could time tweaks to the code? Just some thoughts. :)

207.145.133.34 19:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC) (Kylu@Work) (Yes, this really was me!) ~Kylu (u|t) 06:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!

		Thanks for contributing to my successful RfA!
		To the people who have supported my request: I appreciate the show of confidence in me and I hope I live up to your expectations! To the people who opposed the request: I'm certainly not ignoring the constructive criticism and advice you've offered. I thank you as well! ♥! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd use a dynabar in this just to make a point, but then nobody'd be able to use it... c.c ~Kylu (u|t) 06:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical heraldry

Hi, I was going to suggest that you leave a note at Talk:Heraldry to try and attract more attention, but I see you've already done this, as well as go for the FAC. Glad to see you've had some feedback, I'll try to comment as well in the next couple of days. Dr pda 21:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's OK. I had the advantage of seeing a picture of the relevant hat in one of the sources I consulted (probably Heim) --Dr pda 22:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you've addressed all the comments I had. I've had a quick look for Eastern heraldic images, but with no success --Dr pda 17:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, trying to look at what confuses me: perhaps it's just all the terminology I've never heard, that makes it hard to digest a paragraph in the middle of the article, which is what I typically do to see if I feel like an article has prose problems. When I go to any section in the middle, I'm lost, because I don't have the terminology. So, starting at the top (take my comments for what they're worth - I'm not a prose person :-):

• most formalized within the Roman Catholic Church where every bishop including the Pope is permitted a personal coat of arms.
  • Should there be a comma after Catholic Church?
• Analogous customs are followed
  • Is there any reason not to just say "similar customs" (for us Heraldry Dummies 101 who are already overwhelmed with all the new terminology)?
• The mitre and crozier is common on institutional arms.
  • Should that "is" be "are"?
• Until 1960, the composition of the shield itself was regulated and registered with the Heraldry Commission of the Roman Curia, but after this office was abolished by Pope John XXIII, shield design has had no official guidance.
  • Should that be "but since this office was ... " ?

All in all, I'm not good at analyzing prose: I just have a hard time getting through the article, but it may be more because it presents so much new terminology for me, and less a matter of the actual prose. Have you asked Tony to have a look? If you get JKelly on board with the images, let me know, so I can support. Sandy 20:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Coats of Arms

This is actually something of a complicated pain, but your expertise in the area will help quite a bit. There are two potential copyrights involved with every coat of arms (and we get this wrong all the time). The first is the design of the arms (the blazon). The design can be copyrighted (and, incidentally, trademarked and subject to all sorts of other restrictions which we largely pretend do not exist). You're probably dealing with old enough designs that this is not a concern, but it would be best to know who created what design when. Secondly, there is enough creative content in a rendition of that design for a new derivative work copyright to be claimed by the person who actually "drew" that representation. These should be drawn by Wikipedians, or someone else willing to release their rendition under a free license, per Misplaced Pages:Fair use criteria #1. In short, you need to show that a) the design is free and b) this individual drawing of it is free. It is easy for us to claim Misplaced Pages:Fair use on the design, but there's no excuse for us taking someone else's drawing. Jkelly 01:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sincere apologies for any offense. Believe me, it isn't only this nomination I was talking about. If you look over WP:FA right now you will see at least one other one that I've mentioned images being WP:CSD. If not quite a daily occurance, it is definitely a regular one. The comment of mine that you linked to shouldn't be taken personally; the intent wasn't to slight the work that you've put in, and coat of arms images are a lot trickier than most of the other images we deal with. I hope you'll accept this apology for what could easily be read as my being dismissive. To answer the other question, scanning your own work would be great. There exists software that helps with coat of arms design and creation, but I cannot recall the name of it. You could also take a look at commons:Category:Ecclesiastical heraldry and see who has done good work. Thanks in advance. Jkelly 01:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The same uploader uploaded both and Image:CoA Husi Bishopry.jpg andImage:Husi.jpg. The latter they identified as coming from Enciclopedia României, volume II. That may be where the bishopric's coat of arms also came from. I'm not sure if that helps us at all. Jkelly 02:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Going with an illustration from an old book would work; is finding such a thing easier than making our own rendition? I'm a useless artist, I am afraid. As for the stamp, Image:GLKStamps.jpg looks like it has all of the things that an image description page needs. Jkelly 18:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a Creative Commons No-Derivatives license. We prohibit non-derivative licenses, just as we cannot accept "no derivatives" textual contributions, so we couldn't use any such images, but you could host them at Flickr or with a similar service. Jkelly 18:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a "goal of the project" issue; licenses that disallow derivative use aren't "free as in speech" even if they are "free as in beer", so we disallow them just as we disallow "non-commercial" licenses. Personally, I am a little unsure of the practical usefulness of "no derivative" images; if I change the file format, is that a derivative work? Still, I wouldn't publish some of my photography under anything but a no-derivative license. As for the other question, reprinting plates from a book doesn't normally have any effect on the original copyright status. It may, however, in specific cases. Poland's rules are that if a work was published before May 23 1994 without copyright notice, that work is in the public domain. If the republication was before 1994 and attached a copyright notice that hadn't existed, the reprint would alter the copyright status. Otherwise, the rule is seventy years after the death of the creator. Jkelly 22:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)