User talk:OddHerring

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, OddHerring!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

File:DogeusII.png

File:DogeusII.png is considered to fulfill the criteria for speedy deletion and has been marked on its page. The following reason has been specified:

CSD G1 (test page, accidental creation, or page containing nonsense or no valid content)

If you believe the content does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, you may replace the speedy deletion tag with a regular deletion request (if the content has not been deleted) or request undeletion (if the content has already been deleted).
All your uploads, including deleted ones, are listed in your upload log.
If you need help, please read our frequently asked questions or visit the help desk. Please do not remove this message from your talk page. You may set up archiving instead. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

---

Yann (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope

---

Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote. If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. Otherwise, consider an alternative outlet. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding.

 

--Yann (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

File:DogeusII.png

File:DogeusII.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

—‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Tudor Crown

Hi @OddHerring, I can see we share a nerdy interest in the 1901 Tudor Crown. I thought it easiest that we discuss it here and I explained my reasoning behind adapting Sodacan's original creation.

Since more and more original texts have become available online, we can reference the original artworks. The War Office issued a sealed pattern in 1901 (erroneously said to be 1902 in some parts of the wild west of the internet) chosen by Edward VII from which strictly no deviation was permitted: https://archive.org/details/genealogicalmaga5190unse/page/92/mode/2up

As you can see, it has an invected line on the circlet, very steep inclines on the outermost crosses and the mound and cross on top is absolutely huge, with no overlap on the rest of the crown.

And the colour scheme had an emerald mound, banded in gold. And the circlet has a central ruby with sapphires on the outermost sides:

https://archive.org/details/boutellsheraldry0000unse/page/184/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/boutellsheraldry0000unse/page/n253/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/heraldry0000bedi/page/132/mode/2up

So these were the adaptions I made to Sodacan's design: enlarged the mound, steepened the incline on the circlet, and changed the colours of the jewels.

I just thought that it would be best if I explain my reasoning lest you think I was just uploading random ideas of mine. Dgp4004 (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Worth adding that the late Elizabeth II flipped the jewels around for her authorised At Edward's Crown, with a sapphire in the centre and rubies outermost. This is how Sodacan (who sadly no longer seems to be active) came to create his Tudor Crown by adapting his St Edward's Crown which has a sapphire in the centre. Dgp4004 (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply, but yeah, I guess you're right. I originally didn't reply because I had no idea what to write and I was kind of nervous.

I'm replying now because I've dealt with so many annoying people while trying to edit Wikipedia that you look like the god of politeness and reason in comparison. Also I now know how frustrating it can be for somebody to obstruct you like I have by just not replying.

I'll also admit that most of my opposition was because your modification of the 1901 Tudor Crown looked slightly worse than Sodacan's depiction.

Anyway uh... you have my permission to go ahead. Good luck dealing with other people. OddHerring (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply @OddHerring, much appreciated.

I actually agree with you — it is kind of ugly with a massive green mound on top, and the central ruby doesn't look half as good as a central sapphire. But I blame Edward VII for that, nothing to be done about it now! :)

I actually have an even more controversial theory that I daren't unleash on the world because I can't prove it: the heraldic crown used in England from 1714 to 1838 is based on the State Crown of George I and not St Edward's Crown. And the heraldic crown used in the first half of Victoria's reign was the 1838 Imperial State Crown.

My main smoking gun is the mound. Many old heraldic images assumed to be the St Edward's Crown depict a blue mound. And no-one questions it. Yet we all know that the St Edward's Crown has a gold mound and always has. Guess which crown had a pale blue mound? The State Crown of George I. Likewise, the St Edward's Crown has quite a gentle depression on the arches. Whereas the heraldic depictions have a rollercoaster of a depression. But you know which crown also had a massive depression? The State Crown of George I! And then the state crown was altered under George II and III to give it a much flatter top, which also tallies with the depictions under those monarchs.

As for Victoria, the St Edward's Crown never even made an appearance at Victoria's Coronation. She wasn't crowned with it, it wasn't on the alter, it was nowhere to be seen. So why would she choose it as her heraldic crown?

And that is why there are so many funny looking St Edward's Crowns out there — because they're not St Edward's Crowns at all. Anyway, I've been wanting to share that theory for so long, there it is :D Dgp4004 (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)