Talk:Coat of arms

message: What is with the "QUIT DELETING MY POSTS IM TRYING TO HELP" at the end of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.245.141 (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm... 

message: I suggested a while back that coat of arms is also sometimes referred to as crest of arms, but an editor refuted my claim (edit summary was: "crest of arms? there aint no such thing!"), but apparently Coat of arms is sometimes referred to as such. I intend to re-introduce this into the article – but I'll will wait pending input from others. What ya reckon? / Ezeu 19:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: S/he's right; there ain't such a thing. A crest is a very specific thing, and the word is very often misued to mean something it doesn't. Like so many others, the Elmbridge council could use a vocabulary lesson. Of course the wikipedia needs to cater to all, even the misinformed, not ignore misconceptions incompletely; which is why there are notices on crest and heraldry and this page to help people learn what "crest" actually means. Doops |  talk 21:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. I have edited the article accordingly. / Ezeu 21:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crest of arms? 

message: Is this a joke? The article is a tiny little stub right now. It includes absolutely no obscure information; everything in it is common knowledge. I can gladly add references for the sake of "further reading" or suchlike; but it's impossible to cite sources for my latest rewrite since the source is me! Doops |  talk 18:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced? 

message: Hi. Here's the opening ¶ under the preferred version of User: Skull 'n' Femurs:
:A coat of arms - properly called a Heraldic Achievement, or less formally Armorial Bearings or just Arms - is also often wrongly called a crest of arms. In European tradition it is a set of colourful symbols with origins in the designs used by  mediaeval knights to make their armor and shield stand out in battle or tournaments and enable quick recognition.
The main problem with this is that it takes a question of terminology and makes it the centerpiece of the article. The article isn't about terminology (or at least it shouldn't be); it's about COATS OF ARMS. Therefore the first sentence should, like practically every other article, define it. The first ¶ should lay out the situation as clearly and legibly as possible. We have to remember the reader first and foremost.
Additionally, I do not see the need to work "achievement" into the first sentence. The 2nd ¶ already makes quite clear what a heraldic achievement is and when that phrase is and is not synonomous with "arms" and "coats of arms." Insofar as this is an issue, the article cannot help involving itself in terminology; and it is important that we helpe the reader to navigate that minefield. But again, simplicity and clarity should be our watchword.
Finally, let me repeat what I said earlier up this page — in your obsession, Skulls n' Femurs, with "armorial bearings" and "heraldic achievements" you're trying to become more 'correct than the experts'. That has two problems: as a matter of style, it makes the wikipedia look forbidding and uptight; as a matter of substance, it might leave the reader with the misapprehension that "arms" and "coat of arms" are somehow wrong, which they aren't. Doops |  talk 23:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening ¶ 

message: In some heraldic traditions (such as the Scottish) it is basically true that coats of Arms are individual possessions which can be passed down through more than one generation in the line of heirs (usually the eldest sons), but it is NOT true in other traditions (such as the English, where many cousins of the same surname can have identical coats of arms).  The article page should reflect this. AnonMoos 20:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. both England and Scotland require differencing of arms for younger sons. Scotland's system is complicated and comprehensive, specifying several generations' worth of of changes involving borders, color changes, changes of lines to wavy/embattled/engrailed/etc. England's system is much simpler: there are specific charges which younger sons add to their arms; after a few generations the pile up of cadency marks (as they are called) becomes unbearable and the person applies for a fresh set of arms for his cadet branch (usually based on / related to his ancestral arms). But cousins should never have identical arms in either place. Doops |  talk 21:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, that happens not to be the case.  The English system has a set of cadency marks (for the FIRST son as well as for other sons), which can be used to distinguish the arms of sons (as individuals) from those of their father (particularly when the father is still alive), if desired; and these cadency marks have been used on some occasions to differentiate between different branches of a family.  But cadency marks are by no means obligatory, and patrilineal cousins quite frequently have the same set of arms.  Furthermore, in the Polish system, minor nobility families with dozens of different surnames can all have exactly the same coat of arms. AnonMoos 17:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oversweepingly broad statement

message: As I (mis)understand the history, the "coat of arms" is so called because it was painted or embroidered on a cloth tunic worn over metal armor to keep the sun off; this "coat" had the same design as the shield.  The word coat is also used for the components of an impaled or quartered shield, and the article ought to mention this somewhere.  —Tamfang 07:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  quarterly 

message: Someone seriously wrote that the "coats of arms" of France and Italy are more heraldic than that of the USA? —Tamfang 07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you suggest it is otherwise?  Is there an American heraldic standard? Kittybrewster 22:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest that the US Great Seal has a blazonable shield with a supporter and the "coats of arms" of Italy and France resemble heraldry about as much as the jar of pens on my desk.  —Tamfang 23:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All three of them are about as heraldic as my pants, perhaps the Italian and Usonian more so than the French. —Nightstallion (?) 09:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, exactly where was this statement supposed to have been made? I looked at the last version of the article before your edit, and could find no comparison made between the arms of the US and those of France or Italy.  What I saw was a statement that France and Italy had arms, even though they are no longer monarchies. --EncycloPetey 04:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It said the ex-monarchies "retain" coats of arms, which is false of Italy and France (though true, more or less, of Hungary and Croatia); and that the USA Seal is "not an armorial achievement".  The comparison is created by the juxtaposition.  —Tamfang 05:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since the two topics appeared in separate paragraphs, I expect that the statements were written at different times by different individuals, and were not intended to be juxtaposed. In any case, the new text dodges this problem. --EncycloPetey 09:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  flexible standards 

message: The external link at the bottom links to a program for Win95. Surely that's very old and should be removed? →bjornthegreat t|c 12:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External link removal?

message: Helmet#Sovereign - Kittybrewster 13:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm...Kitty...you'll have to be a bit more clear on the purpose of this edit. The link that you've pointed to is very Britannocentric in its explanation of heraldic helmets, but I cannot determine why you put it here.--Eva bd 15:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure it's practical to list the format in each country but an example is not a bad thing. Perhaps it would be best to add 'for example in the UK the coronets were' Alci12 16:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A query was raised by a French User as to the appropriate helm for a Baronet. I was surprised it was not covered by en.wiki - it is now. - Kittybrewster 20:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Helmets

message: If I want to include the coat of arms of a family in an article in wikipedia, do I need to get the permission of the family?  Does fair use apply? Anyways, in the US is ownership of really old coats of arms even recognized?  nadav 05:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would that that would fall in the guidelines of Fair Use if you are using the coat of arms to illustrate that family only.--Eva bd 14:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A particular representation of a coat of arms may be under copyright; but if you re-draw the coat yourself, or use your own photograph of a public display, you're in the clear.  —Tamfang 06:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.--Eva bd 13:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coats of Arms and Fair Use 

message: For some reason, this page has been attracting a lot of IP vandalism.  Maybe it's time for Wikipedia:Semiprotection. nadav 08:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I listed it on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and it will be semiprotected for 5 days. nadav 12:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Can anyone confirm what is the correct description of this i.e. used here for the Royal Greenwich Hospital, Thanks! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 18:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In rare cases a blazon will specify the precise shape of the shield; but usually that is left up to the heraldic artist's discretion. Most commonly, this flexibility allows for standard mediaeval-looking "heater" shields or more florid baroque forms (chosen according to context-appropriateness); but I see no reason why this circular depiction couldn't also be an extreme example of artistic license. On the other hand, it's also possible that this photo actually shows not an oddly-shaped escutcheon but rather a badge, which would be blazoned something like this: on a roundel argent, a  crown or on a cross gules between four anchors of the second. Doops |  talk 18:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought- thanks! It's just that the heraldic badge doesn't say anything specifically about "round" badges. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The heraldic badge article is right now a pretty pathetic stub. Suffice it to say that badges consisting of stuff on a roundel are relatively common. (Incidentally, in my blazon above I forgot that another name for a roundel arguent is a plate which could have saved me a little typing.) Doops |  talk 21:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think we should redirect to Badge and add the heraldic info there as the two things are clearly connected? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No.  There ought to be a link, and perhaps a section on the badge article explaining the historical connection, but heraldic badges are personal insignia, whereas modern badges are typically linked to an office or rank. There is enough of a difference that the articles should remain separate. --EncycloPetey 23:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Subject to the small cavil that some offices do indeed have heraldic badges associated with them, Encyclopetey is absolutely right -- the heraldic badge article may be weak now but it definitely has the scope to be an important article someday. Doops |  talk 00:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Assuming the website knows what it is talking about (which of course it might not), here are the badges of some English and Welsh counties and boroughs; about half of them involve some sort of roundel. (But of course you're right to say, as I said above, that the image could just show arms bent into a circle.) Doops |  talk 17:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And some of those do use some or most elements of the arms of those places in a roundel. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but that's silly in my view, and contrary to the whole point of a badge. Doops |  talk 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: When arms are in a circle, what is it?

message: History2007 is misrepresenting sources, and adding irrelevant information to this article.
*Item: History2007 says in this edit that "seals and coats of arms were designed to make a good impression and say something about their owners." and attributes this information to an article at the British Museum .  The article being cited does not even talk about coats of arms.  First of all, the article is about medieval seals, and not about coats of arms.  It does not even mention coats of arms.  The article does say "Most seals say something about their owners." It does not say that they were "designed" to do this, but rather that modern workers can tell something about the owner from the seal.  It clarifies this with the following sentences: "A king, for instance was represented in a very specific way, as was a queen, a bishop or a noble lord and lady."  The word "impression" in the article refers to the pressing of a seal into wax, not about making an impression on the viewer.  So the source has been thoroughly misrepresented in three ways. —This is part of a comment by EncycloPetey  which was interrupted by the following: 
:*Agree, and even if it was properly sourced, it doesn't deserve its own level 2 header, and it definately doesn't deserve to be the opening header.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think this would be appropriate in heraldic badge.  Agree that it's not appropriate here.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I think this can stay.  This is useful information, and it would be more useful if the views that you mentioned were also represented.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Agree with the comments about the source, but I think corporate coats of arms - which are not the same as logos - deserve a mention.  The evolution of logos and coats of arms was completely separate, but since they're both symbolic, they have a lot in common.  The information about Mitsubishi is relevant, even though it's about a logo, because of its history as a mon.  -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You have replied, but you have not answered any of the objections I noted to your text.  You have simply added back the unsupported and irrelevant information.  Of the sources you cite that I have followed up on, none contains the cited information or supports your POV.  You are still claiming content from the British Museum site that isn't there.  Claiming that a reference contains information does not make it true, and certainly not when the cited source does not even address the subject.  Adding 20 more citations of sources that don't actually say what you claim will not make any difference.  You also did not read my comments above if you think I have "no objection" to the section on the Vatican.  It is not I that hasn't read the references.  I have read them and quoted them above, but you seem to have missed that fact.  Please re-read my comments above and respond to them in the context of the sources you've "cited" instead of simply spouting personal beliefs.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, no, I haven't learned anything from your information.  I already knew about the Mitsubishi logo from the collection of books I have on Japanese mon.  I already knew about John Paul II's arms and symbolism from reading other sources.  You are simply coming across as egotistical in making the above assumptions, which do not seem to be substantiated by any evidence. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There isn't enough information yet for a whole section on that subject.  So it does not deserve a whole section unto itself yet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit by History2007 

message: Good, now you are actually using some logic. So we can have a discussion.
I do NOT agree with your logic, but this is a starting point for a debate.
The heart of the section I added was about the fact that "coats of arms
are not just identification symbols, but intend to convey a message,
often of respect, and at times intend to re-inforce an ideology".
I can bring in 20 more references that support this fact. It is fact that
coats of arms are communication tools as well as identification tools
and since the 19th century they have ONLY been communication tools.
A good example was the reference I had from University of Warwick.
Every English university has a coat of arms. It is not to identify
them in battle, it is to "communicate an image". As for the Pope's 
coat of arms and its marian symbolism, it was ONLY to communicate
a message and an ideology. 
I think teh above fact is essential in understanding coats of arms today
and deserves to be in the article. I can bring in many references, 
but you will, within minutes dismiss them, for you have clearly not
read teh references I had. Therefore, before deleting the section
again, please air your objection to the statements above first.
Thanlk you. History2007 (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have replied, but you have not answered any of the objections I noted to your text.  You have simply added back the unsupported and irrelevant information.  Of the sources you cite that I have followed up on, none contains the cited information or supports your POV.  You are still claiming content from the British Museum site that isn't there.  Claiming that a reference contains information does not make it true, and certainly not when the cited source does not even address the subject.  Adding 20 more citations of sources that don't actually say what you claim will not make any difference.  You also did not read my comments above if you think I have "no objection" to the section on the Vatican.  It is not I that hasn't read the references.  I have read them and quoted them above, but you seem to have missed that fact.  Please re-read my comments above and respond to them in the context of the sources you've "cited" instead of simply spouting personal beliefs.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, no, I haven't learned anything from your information.  I already knew about the Mitsubishi logo from the collection of books I have on Japanese mon.  I already knew about John Paul II's arms and symbolism from reading other sources.  You are simply coming across as egotistical in making the above assumptions, which do not seem to be substantiated by any evidence. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There isn't enough information yet for a whole section on that subject.  So it does not deserve a whole section unto itself yet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: The motto on the bottom of Indonesian coat of arms reads Bhinneka Tunggal Inka. It should reads Bhinneka Tunggal IKA (not inka). Wrong spelling.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.164.74.120 (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Indonesia

message: Should discuss unusual phenomenon of rare Japanese armigers, such as the current Emperor.  --99.139.239.108 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Japan

message: I'm not happy with this language:
: The Vatican has its own coat of arms, as the Coat of arms of the Holy See. Yet there is an at least 800-year-old tradition for personal Papal coat of arms that goes back to Pope Innocent IV.
This implies that the Papacy is (armorially) special when it isn't.  Around eight centuries ago, every person in a position of authority started using a coat of arms.  When the office is not hereditary, the arms of the office (if any) and of its occupant are distinct.  Let's find other wording. —Tamfang (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could be bold and try and find another way of wording it yourself, as you seem to know a bit about papal heraldry. --DWRtalk 20:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Popes

message: OK, I'd be able to understand if it were "Scandinavian" countries where the argument may come in that it is not a part of the peninsula, but certainly Denmark is a "Nordic" country, is it not? 4.255.55.29 (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nordic countries" section ends ... then 'Denmark' is mentioned mentioned under the "other countries" section....????? 

message: I seen there symbols being called these (its the one next to the flag). Is there any real difference between them?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.248.218 (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An emblem can be any graphic symbol; the word has no specific meaning in heraldry.  A coat of arms is what's painted on a shield (called a 'coat' because it was originally also painted on the cloth tunic that a Crusader wore to keep his metal armor from cooking him in the sun).  A crest is worn on top of a helm (compare Crested Jay).  —Tamfang (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats the difference between the 3 (emblem, coat of arm, crest) for a nation 

message: How would you call the blazoned shield in a coat of arms? "Shield" or "escutcheon" refers to the shape and not the content, whereas "coat of arms" includes the motto, the crest, the helmet, etc. Would you use the term "blazon shield", or "shield blazon", or another suggestion? Liam D (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you are asking, but "shield" does not refer to particular shape; it refers to the region of the overall achievement that is represented as if it were a shield.  Note also that "blazoned" means "described in the specialized heraldic terms of heralds". --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I say coat of arms is what you want; the combination of shield, helm etc is the achievement.  A quartered shield is commonly said to comprise two or more coats. —Tamfang (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tamfang: the full display is referred to as an achievement, but just the shield with its contents is referred to as a coat of arms, or I have seen it styled a shield of arms if you like.  The escutcheon, it might be noted, is not just "the shape", but is the very shield itself.  Is there a question about this article's style or content? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 04:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blazon 

message: Hello? Where is the Holy Roman Empire? Where are the Germanic States? These are the places from which other countries adopted Heraldry! (i.e. Vatican, Japan, Eastern European States, much later USA)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.105.222 (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about German heraldry? What is it that you want to see here? — I don't buy that Japanese heraldry owes anything much to Germany. —Tamfang (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Germany

message: This article doesn't really address the origins of the coats of arms. I know that the history of coats of arms, flags, and similar symbols in Europe and the Middle East is all closely tied. From what I have read most of the traditions associated with flags derive from the Germanic tribes but I believe that coats of arms and related symbols predate even the Romans, though I don't know the specifics.
Can anybody fill in the details?
--Mcorazao (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See Heraldry#Origins and history. To treat the history of coats of arms separately would be, well, inefficient. —Tamfang (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: : The Japanese designs are distinctly different from European formats and often use floral and abstract patterns.
That's a bit of a non sequitur; plenty of European arms are abstract or floral. —Tamfang (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Obamafan70 (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese design style 

message: The coat of arms that is mentioned in the article to be for Egypt is wrong. The coat of arms shown in the picture follows the United Arab Republic as written on them. United arab republic is something different than current Egypt.
Amjad Abdullah (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, one of the coat of arms is the United Arab Republic, which was composed mostly of Egypt, and the other is the Kingdom of Egypt.  If you want to change it to something, United Arab Republican is not correct by any means because of the Kingdom arms.  Now, if you can change it to Arabian, Middle Easter or North African, but each have of those options has issue just as well.  Egypt, the region and not the Arab Republic of Egypt, seems to be its own geographic enclave, never quite African, never quite Arabian and never quite Middle Eastern.  [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems Egypt continued to use the UAR name by itself for 10 years after Syria exited the union.  So the UAR arms were the arms of Egypt and Egypt alone for a decade.  So Egyptian would be most accurate after all.  [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 21:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the info.
109.171.137.251 (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: United Arab Republic

message: The public domain text I have just copied into the article, originates from  and is copyright expired. The text copied into the article by me was copied from Pimbley's Dictionary of Heraldry pp. 3-5, put onto the web by Melissa Snell -- PBS (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pimbley's dictionary of heraldry 

message: Another editor reinstated this lengthy information.  It was a new addition to the article, not something time tested.  Also, the terms mostly come from one source, and are one author's opinion on how arms should be divided and classified, while other authors divide and classify arms differently.  Some of these terms are repetitive, some definitions muddled and confusing.  A few of the terms could be salvaged and expanded, but the whole list form and repetitious definitions should be removed.
Also, dates are quite relevant to a source.  When you have two books, one stating the Earth is the centre of the solar system and the other stating it the Sun is, it is the date of the sources one will look at to determine which is the more recent and accepted theory.  You can not give equal credence to the first theory as you do to the second theory which was built upon the first, as to the nth theory likewise built upon those before it.  Many of the examples given tell tales that have long been discredited.  There is no evidence that Washington’s arms influenced the design of the US arms.  The actual legend about the Black Prince's feathers is that the prince took the helm of his rival, not his foe's coat of arms.  The source is out-dated, it tells legends no longer beloved to be factual, and does not have a place then in this article.  [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 09:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the deletion. The matter in question was all added in one edit. Its length is disproportionate to its value. It's a glossary of terms most of which I've never seen used – and those which are useful can be defined in context rather than in a lump like this. —Tamfang (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the addition to ''Traditions and usage'' 

message: See one source at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_Libya#Citation_needed_.28Hawk_of_Quraish.29.  It's rather doubtful whether they actually go back to Saladin or the Quraysh in their modern visual form, but that's what they've been called in 20th-century Arab nationalist rhetoric and symbolism... AnonMoos (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. There are also Wikimedia Commons categories :commons:Category:Eagle of Saladin and :commons:Category:Hawk of Quraish... AnonMoos (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hawk of Quraysh and and Eagle of Saladin

message: I have a nice program for making coats of arms. How do I add this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llamallamarubberducky (talk • contribs) 18:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding links 

message: Why Turkey in Arab World ? Wanxpy (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey 

message: There is currently a RFC on Coat of arms of the Netherlands. All are welcome to comment. Fry1989 eh? 17:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: Somebody need to add the spanish version of this article  on the Languages section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Il giovane bello 73 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Languages

message: The article was informative, ineteresting, and had good citations. I did however, fix some grammatical errors such as changing the word honour into honor. Also, the word color was misspelled as colour. About 2 other words were misspelled as well.  Clydetheglide9 (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammatical Errors

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Coat of arms. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150226073350/http://www.mcgill.ca:80/files/secretariat/WordmarkandInsigniaofMcGillUniversity-Policyontheuseof.pdf to http://www.mcgill.ca/files/secretariat/WordmarkandInsigniaofMcGillUniversity-Policyontheuseof.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified