User talk:Kontributor 2K

Hello

Bonjour !
Kontributor 2K (d) 08:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Archives :
• 2023
• 2024
• 2025

Category:Mitres in heraldry of France

We could still add the French COA that contains the metires to that category but not create something like "Category:[random total number] Mitres in heraldry of France" SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

As an additional category to a category like "azure 3 mitres or in heraldry", it may be somehow relevant, but it's unlikely to happen, as the mitres are often singles, also there are only 347 files in the category… -- Kontributor 2K (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Paul Poupard

Do you think we can end the dicussion with a vote or should we open a list on which useless subcategories to nominate for deletion? I felt like the "Ave Maria in heraldry of France" is now useless to me now considering on how the search system is more advanced now then it was back then in its early years. It is about time that these subcategories must go (like the "horses in heraldry of [insert random country here] by tintcure" because red horses do not exist). SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Random sorting

Your assignment of random sort templates to emblems of USAF wings and groups is beyond useless. It amounts to vandalism. Please stop doing it. Lineagegeek (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

?? @Lineagegeek: Well sometimes, I add a regular sort key (Air Wing + No. - relevant keyword 1st, i.e. not a random number), sometimes I add a temporary sort key that keeps the files grouped, except that instead of having dozen of USAF wings and groups files grouped at the top of catgories, they're grouped at the end of categories. What can I do if no one bothers to put general sort keys on these files? Kontributor 2K (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kontributor 2K: You can sort for the category you are editing. When you use {{Default sort|foo}} it uses that sort for every category the image is in. To sort for a single category you are working on, use {{Category name|foo}}. That will put them where you want in that category without removing them from their proper place in other categories. Lineagegeek (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@Lineagegeek: I know how it works, but you can be sure that I'm not going to spend hours to add individual keys to approximately 90% of the categories of hundreds files, simply out of respect for a minority of military categories that are the only ones for which the sorting by file name is meaningful.
I would add that I am not working on (i.e. editing) ‘one category’, but on many at the same time, which is why I'm fully aware of the problem created by military heraldry files, whose names begin with a number, which makes no sense in a sorting function where one would expect a proper name or a theme, this especially for military heraldry ; for example, in general heraldry categories, all files of Artillery regiments should logically be sorted by the key 'Artillery' then the No. of the regiment, and so on with 'Infantry', etc., not the No. first, which is semantically void and, above all (not a pun), does place all military files at the top of the categories, which does not integrate at all, since we all make an effort to include relevant sorting keys (city name, surname, etc.).
Example in there, there are dozen of unsorted files at the top of the category - 'unsorted' because the No. is totally irrelevant here, although it may be in 1 or 2 specific categories, like this one or similar. The best would perhaps be to categorise the files in military heraldry sub-catgories, but I'm not the one who will take care of that.
When I see a file coming into a category, I sometimes take the time to add the correct general sort key, like here or there, but I cannot take on the task of adding keys, whether individual or general, to all these files. What I can do is place the files at the end of the categories by assigning an ancient cyrillic letter as the sort key, i.e. {{DEFAULTSORT:Ѵ}} ; this makes it clearer, as one can see at the very end of this category, or that one to a lesser extent.
The files are still grouped together, and this is compatible with military herladry categories, where files are still sorted by the file name order, given that they all have the same ‘defsort’. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit : I've processed 1 file, in a way that doesn't disrupt the first category (out of 7): diff.

This said, the word 'center' as the primary sort key (now only for 1 category), is questionable, unless one absolutely wants to group all the files from centers regardless of the activities of the said centers, i.e. regardless, eventually, of what is depicted on the coat of arms. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I would be more sympathetic if the default sort keys were not arbitrary. I do sympathize with you working on multiple heraldic categories (But "V" [...-]) is hardly Cyrillic). Indeed, I appreciate your effort to bring some order to sorting of entries in heraldic categories. As a suggestion, perhaps when you are doing so with entries that include a US military unit category you could add the numerical sort for that category. Some may still not sort properly, but I am fine with adding whatever is needed to reach the desired outcome, rather than reverting your edits that may not be appropriate for the US military categories. "Je veux réduire le travail pour nous deux." Lineagegeek (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Lineagegeek: By “I want to reduce the workload for both of us”, you seem to suggest that, ultimately, this kind of files should be considered from the same perspective as the strictly-heraldic files, as are the majority of those that can be seen in this recently cleant-up category where, although there are still some issues that need to be addressed, things are now much clearer.

I would add that, personally, I'm here to deal with heraldry, and certainly not to get involved in managing files downloaded en masse from the Internet, which are by the way dumped in the same way into heraldic categories without any caution, attention, or consideration, if only in the sense that it would suffice to take the trouble, even just once, to open one of the categories where these files are mixed up to see that there is no connection between the military emblems downloaded from a website or another, and the work done by Commons heraldists, for whom these categories are intended.

It seems likely that the subcategories listed in here are perfectly suited to the purpose, subcategories that could be named “… in military heraldry” if desired, or anything, but the important thing is that these emblems, insignia, etc. are not classified in the same categories as the strictly-heraldic files.

I started transferring some files, in addition to the Globes, for example the Roundels where all military emblems listed in categories 1 roundel in heraldry, 1 hurt in heraldry, and 1 pomme in heraldry, were transferred.

I'm doing this gradually to give users involved in the import of military emblems from the internet to Commons, time to create the appropriate subcategories, but it goes without saying that after a certain period of time, if the subcategories have not been created, the files will be transferred without distinction, and “without any caution, attention, or consideration”, if I may. I have enough work with heraldry itself to consider taking on the management of these aside categories, and files, whether, for the latter, for reasons of sorting-keys or heraldic accuracy.

Recently, this file has been put onto Commons, I then transferred it to the newly created main category, where further development is yet to come.

I would like to add, by the way, that on this file, it's not Crosses bottony in heraldry but Cross bottony in crest (and, incidentally, in military inignia - whatever the file name suggests), and that if this was the first time I had reported this exact type of categorization error, it would be a pleasure, at least for purely heraldic files. I take this opportunity to ping @Coldstreamer20: who is welcome to join the conversation if he wishes.

To get back somehow to the topic, as one can see from this intervention (1 example among many similar ones), there are huge problems with many people's perception of the term “heraldry”, which they see as categories into which any symbol or emblem can be stuffed.

Also, when one comes to talk about “sharing the workload”, it's important to note that, in reality, no work has ever been done on these categories, only intensive and blind stuffing.

Regarding the “arbitrary” sort key and the cyrillc letter “Ѵ”, “I would be more sympathetic” if the problem caused by the lack of any sort key had been identified much earlier and by one of us other than myself, not to mention that I have been alerting you to this issue for some time now, and showing you examples that are more respectful of the categories, with perhaps a certain discrepancy in the pedagogical form - but in my defense, I'm not a 10-years commons user - also, there's no point in bringing that up again.

The {{DEFAULTSORT:Ѵ}}, and the {{DEFAULTSORT:z}} and {{DEFAULTSORT:zz}} that are left, can be easily removed by any autopatrolled user and are an issue in no way, the regular sort keys that have beeen assigned can be easily found to, the point is that the military emblems are to be properly categorized, i.e. in their own categories.

If we look again in the Globes category, it's understadable that the constantly growing number of donwloaded-from-the-web military emblems will flood the heraldic categories which are not meant for them.

I also invite @Jpgibert: , since he may be feeling like involved in the topic; also, if you want this discussion transferrend to another board, we may process.

Cordialement. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

FB files

What does "fb files" stand for? I wanted to add the FR tinctures to this file File:Blason ville fr Gignac 46.svg based on the translation of this (Tiercé en pairle abaissé de sinople, d’or et de tenné; au filet en pairle d'argent brochant sur la partition et au village du même essoré de sable brochant sur le tout) as I do not speak French very fluently. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

french blazon projet sorry fbp. I repair the files after your interventions. Do you intend to work all night, or can I go to sleep peacefully? Kontributor 2K (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: there's no need to manually categorize the files in tincture categories, which are over-populated, and if the template returns an "undefined color combinations of heraldic shields" it's not worth either, as this will be solved by setting the template . Thanks, Kontributor 2K (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi my work as been deleated

hi my work as been deleated but is my work! How can i prove it? Topotian (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Topotlan: ,

Would you say that these files “are realistically usable for an educational purpose, such as to be able to be used to illustrate the subject of an article on a Wikimedia project” ? i.e. COMːSCOPE

--Kontributor 2K (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Antonia of Braganza (1862-1959)

Hello @Kontributor 2K,

Can you please explain to me what is the error that makes File:Coat of Arms of Antonia of Braganza (1862-1959).svg invalid?

Thank you, PrincedeConti (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Bonjour @PrincedeConti, en cliquant sur le lien "valide" / "pas valide", on obtient le statut w3c directement depuis le site w3.org ; sur l'exemple, c'est mineur et sans impact sur le rendu du fichier. Après, la catégorie Category:Coat of arms est une redirection vers Category:Coats of arms où sont placés par des bots ou des utilisateurs non informés, des fichiers non catégorisés, en théorie il ne devrait rien y avoir à la racine. Quant aux clés de tri, cela permet d'y voir plus clair lorsqu'on explore les catégories. Cdlt, --Kontributor 2K (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Canton of Zurich

Hi @User:Kontributor 2K I see that you are changing categories from "... in Heraldry of Switzerland" to "... in Heraldry" (removing "of Switzerland"). I always thought that "... in Heraldry of Switzerland" is more accurate and is also a subcategory of the corresponding "... in Heraldry" category. In the past I also have been corrected to add the "of Switzerland" subcategory to my coat of arms. Is there a guideline about that or is the "of Switzerland" category deprecated? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by - (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

One should login, to talk about "the past" and "my coat of arms" -- Kontributor 2K (talk) 11:00, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes sorry! This is me. Same question again. Gerhard Bräunlich (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Gerhard Bräunlich,

There is a topic here: Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology#Tree structure and the tincture templates; the main point being the complexity of developping parallel heraldic localized sub-trees, which would lead to excessive, not to say infinite, complexity, since for the whole to be consistent it must of course be done for all countries. Hence a gradual step backwards.

This said, you're welcome to join the discussion. -- Kontributor 2K (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Makes perfectly sense to me! Gerhard Bräunlich (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Editing a protected template

Hello. I wanted to edit the template Template:Igen/top and improve and add missing translations for one of the languages. But It seems to be protected against edits because it is used on many pages etc. Do you happen to know what I can do to edit the template? Jooja (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jooja, I can do it for you, what is it exactly? -Kontributor 2K (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

That would be great. I updated everything in one change in the template sandbox https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Igen/top/sandbox. Jooja (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for the update. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. There is just one typo from me in line 103:

|fa=نرسیم

|fa=ترسیم Jooja (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done --Kontributor 2K (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Crowns in heraldry categorisation.

I do not agree with moving files from a country-specific category (such as Category:Crowns in heraldry of Canada) to a counting-specific category (such as Category:1 crown in heraldry). I view them as co-existent. There are a number of specific categories for heraldry from such countries as Brazil, Iran, and Russia, and I believe a such a category is warranted if there is a high number of examples from specific countries. As for examples such as File:Jeanne Sauvé escutcheon.svg, I am currently in discussion with another user as to whether it would be wise to create a sub-category for crowned elements such as sceptres or animals, where a crown is not a charge by itself. Fry1989 ^eh? 14:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Bonjour Fry1989,

You're welcome, as well as the other user 'you're currently in discussion with', to join the topic here Commons talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology#Tree structure and the tincture templates (sorry for you were not invited)

This said, you probably noticed that I didn't remove files from Category:Crowns in heraldry of Canada at a glance, but also that I took advantage to fix many other issues. Regards, -- Kontributor 2K (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Fry1989: , to get straight to the point (that is discussed on the linked topic above), do you intend to reproduce each existing heraldic category in a category specific to each country (i.e. to start developing aside localized heraldic sub-trees)?

-- Kontributor 2K (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I create categories ad hoc when I see the need. I do not intend to create a category for every little thing and every possible parameter. Is it your position that there should not be country-specific categorisation at all, even in countries with an above average number of usages of a certain heraldry element (50-100+)? Fry1989 ^eh? 17:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Fry1989: I agree that special elements could go into some aside localized subcategories, such as British/Spanish crowns, why not, but I don't agree that they should replace the general heraldic categories. The points are discussed on the project tp, the scaring one is the potential developpement of heraldic parallel full sub-trees; for an example, that kind of categories already suggests that a further developpement can have to be set up (i.e. 3 eagles or in heraldry of France, and so on), so I'm going back on that, by the way

Then, for an example, moving a file from Horses in heradlry to Horses in heradlry of a country only adds difficulty to further categorization if the file is not already correctly categorized (i.e. in 1 horse argent, or so), although it does indeed relieve the general category.

This said, I don't think that dealing with a 5000 files category is a problem, browsing the full category just takes more time, and adding localized subcategories doesn't improve the search results. It only adds complexity to the management.

Of course there are correctly maintained localized categories (example, among others), which are consistent and don't have figure related sub-catgories (yet?), so the rule is not absolute, but depends on the context. Other examples here.

edit: Also, on this file, although there is no crown element in the blazon, the category currently adds a keyword that is fully relevant in the search results, altough in contradiction with heraldry.

-- Kontributor 2K (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Ping

Went ahead and posted to the admin noticeboard. If you have a specific user to get feedback from or a specific note to make, go ahead and make it (& please do!) but otherwise don't blanket revert needful warnings about inaccurate images, especially ones claiming to represent base forms of important designs.

[As far as the most recent comment, lots of other inaccurate images created by underinformed but eager users isn't any reason at all not to start fixing some of them, especially ones with simple titles that will get more coverage. And, of course, if it's the English Wikipedia articles mostly based on English heraldry that are just wrong on this point, sorry for the trouble. Point out the issues and I can help fix the articles instead.] — LlywelynII 13:48, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Blazon Project - substitut

Bonjour @Kontributor 2K,
Grand merci pour tes corrections sur le blason de William Davisson :
Comment faut-il enregistrer le substitut de son nom d'utilisateur pour ensuite pouvoir l'utliser dans le Template:COAInformation ?
J'ai vu par exemple que le tien était K2. Pour moi, ça pourrait être Hy ?
Est-ce que ça permet ensuite d'ajouter une catégorie pour retrouver ses créations ?
Bien à toi,
Hypsibius (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Bonjour Hypsibius,

En dessous d'un certain nombre de blasons mis en ligne, cela pose plus de problèmes qu'autre chose,

Néanmoins, tu peux toujours te créer une catégorie globale pour tes fichiers, en attendant,

Et en attendant, le mieux est d'utiliser image = F,

Cordialement, -- Kontributor 2K (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

D'accord, merci @Kontributor 2K !

C'est fait, comme tu l'as vu. Je note les dernières corrections pour les appliquer à l'avenir.

J'ai quelques autres blasons à venir pour compléter la série des premiers médecins du roi et surintendants du jardin des plantes.

Bonne journée,

Hypsibius (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Eastern Christian Heraldry

Hey!

Here to disagree :) Yes, there is no category for Western Christian Heraldry (yet), but, as a matter of fact, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic heraldry are way more similiar than Catholic and Protestant. Also, there is a Cat for "Eastern Christianity", while i haven't found any for Western Christianity. Lastly, i am planning on creating "Christian Ecclesiastical Heraldry" so that it'll all make more sense.

Best regards, Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü: , Category:Ecclesiastical heraldry is already a sub-category of Category:Christian heraldry,

Then, it's not certain that adding a mother category "Eastern Christian heraldry" for orthodox/non-orthodox-eastern catholic categories does provide a real overall benefit, also from some point of view, mainly logical too, the "Catholic heraldry" mother category should include western-Roman and eastern catholic (orthodox/non orthodox) heraldries categories. Protestants have their own. So let's go for over-categorization instead of dealing with existing ones first?

There are many potential risks in a system where categories are over-entangled;

BR, --Kontributor 2K (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey,

the data we have is huge so the category system can be huge. Please try to understand how the categories work. "Christian heraldry" is mainly consisting of "Christian symbol XY in heraldy" and "Ecclesiastical heraldry" consist of heraldry used by clergy and church institutions. But until now, it is hard to find "Eastern rite heraldry" cause the categories don't exist and "ecclesiastical heraldry" includes more than it should include. If you critize my changes, please do it constructively.

BR, Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Till now, the category "Ecclesiastical heraldry" is totally missing the categorization by denomination, especially for the Eastern Christian tradition. That's what i am trying to do here while organizing the categories "Ecclesiastical heraldry" and "Christian heraldry" the way they are intended to be organized. Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey (or Ho) @Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü:

As you can see I have added a relevant category here Special:diff/1088321547, yet if you move up the hierarchy you'll see that it's inconsistent.

Then you say "please try to understand how the categories work", actually I don't understand, I just see that Category:Ecclesiastical heraldry already contains subcategories like Category:SVG ecclesiastical heraldry or Category:Ecclesiastical heraldry by country, among others.

Then I can't only criticize the fact that all these are planned to be entangled with rite-specific categories, i.e. over categorized. Is that a constructive? -- Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Tbh, i don't see why you'd think that this means a over-categorization. In fact, it is a compromise between a mistake made in the past and the need to categorize the huge amount of data in a way that makes sense. I'll explain why: Ecclesiastical heraldry is extremly diverse. Orthodox are totally different than protestant CoAs, Catholic CoAs can differ between rites, ... . Till now, an unknown amount of Orthodox CoAs is not categorized at all in this category. That's why we'll need to categorize with rite-specific categories. "Ecclesiastical heraldry by country" is not solving this problem. But as you can see with "Ecclsiastical heraldry in Ukraine" it is well possible to entangle these categories. Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Little addition: Yes, orthodox is "catholic" in a certain sense, but not in a heraldry one. Also, Eastern Catholic is "Roman Catholic" in a certain sense, but once again, not in a heraldry one. Maybe that helps, cf. also: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Catholic_ecclesiastical_heraldry Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Noah.Albert.ZivMilFü,

I see that there are also categories like this one, dedicated to SVG files, and mixing together CoAs with/without ornaments, although I 'm not absolutely certain that raising this point is relevant yet,

And I'd like to add that it would start to cause issues if this categorization principle were to extend to elements specific to heraldry, like here --Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Lobsterthermidor

Hello, I have noticed from your contribution history that you are following my every contribution and edit to Wikimedia Commons, and either deleting, amending or criticising. I percieve this as aggressive editing. In future, as an act of courtesy, please discuss any aspects of my edits, or work in general, by leaving a message on my talk page, before deleting my work. You seem to be aggreived at me not adding "sort keys", I do not believe this is a requirement, so it is not grounds for deletion. Thank youLobsterthermidor (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Lobsterthermidor: Not to mix heraldic figures with proper names is not a requirement??

This organization of the sub-categories is what you believe to be suitable, i.e. clear? and at the opposite this organization or this one is not what should be done, according to you? do you prefer the sub-categories mixed wihout distinction?

I'm not following you, your contributions appear in my watchlist, and as an act of courtesy I've corrected a lot of your edits through time, including sort keys on files or categories (more to come), but not only: for an example after you created Category:Ermine shields with a canton (diff.) , I'm the one to have categorized Category:Bassett (of Uley, Gloucestershire) arms to the newly created category (diff.) since you forgot to, although you were the creator of this latter category too.

Incidentally, I also had to take care of that myself.

So, if your actions do indeed require some surveillance, there is no aggressiveness, rather apathy and above all a great void.

This said, if you want to discuss, too, wether a category Cross of Toulouse in heraldry should be created (diff.) while there is already a Category:Toulouse cross in heraldry (2008), then each category categorized in each other: diff.#1, diff.#2, I'm your man, since I still don't understand the purpose.

Contrary to the indispensability of clearly separating figures categories and proper names categories. Isn't it?

R. -- Kontributor 2K (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Bordure of pieces in the coat of arms of the viscounts of Cabrera (Principality of Catalonia)

I'm so sorry, but the coat of arms of the viscounts of Cabrera has the Catalan heraldic charge of the bordure of pieces, not the bordure embattled: https://dibujoheraldico.blogspot.com/2014/10/cabrera.html.

Joaquim_Link (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC +1)

Yes, Wikipedia relies on personal websites and blogs. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

But the correct version is the uploaded by me (with the bordure of pieces), not the old one (with the bordure embattled). Joaquim Link (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

And so? --Kontributor 2K (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

If you may restore it to my edition. Joaquim Link (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

¿ restore where ? --Kontributor 2K (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Here: https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%9C%E0%B8%B9%E0%B9%89%E0%B9%83%E0%B8%8A%E0%B9%89:Mattis/Articles-Arts_1. Joaquim Link (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/คุยกับผู้ใช้:Kontributor_2K#Bordure_of_pieces_in_the_coat_of_arms_of_the_viscounts_of_Cabrera_(Principality_of_Catalonia) --Kontributor 2K (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)