Talk:Fess

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Heraldry and vexillology Fess is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology

User:Daniel C. Boyer wrote in an edit summary:

deleting this stuff; blazon is primary, after all, as evidenced, inter alia, by Rietstap having no pictures

I have no quarrel with the deletion, but disagree with the stated justification! Rietstap has no pictures because they would make the book more costly and bulky. Blazon is certainly convenient, but if blazon is primary, why are there old rolls with only pictures? Perhaps DCB had in mind the irrelevancy of details of depiction; that certainly implies that the essence of a coat of arms is somewhat abstract, but that does not in turn mean that it is verbal.

The coat of Holstein is now usually blazoned Gules, a nettle-leaf argent, but some have said that it was originally Argent, a border indented gules. (See Fox-Davies The Art of Heraldry, fig.997, p.411.) Perhaps DCB sees this confusion as illustrating the primacy of the blazon, and others see it as the opposite! —Tamfang (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta say it's weird to get a coat of arms and then want to keep it secret. On another hand I'm not sorry to see it removed as it's not really heraldic style! —Tamfang (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fess. 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/20050926182954/http://bartleby.com:80/61/94/F0089400.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/94/F0089400.html

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) 05:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]