Talk:Michael the Black: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
Iago ap Adam (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Ah! I went and looked up Michael's blazon in the O&A and it was still the old version. I guess the reblazon hasn't made it into the database yet. I'll try and figure out how to UN-rollback. If you don't see it changed back by the end of the day, feel free to make the change again. My apologies for the confusion (and extra work). --[[User:Braidwood|Elizabeth Braidwood]] 13:27, 24 May 2007 (EDT) | :Ah! I went and looked up Michael's blazon in the O&A and it was still the old version. I guess the reblazon hasn't made it into the database yet. I'll try and figure out how to UN-rollback. If you don't see it changed back by the end of the day, feel free to make the change again. My apologies for the confusion (and extra work). --[[User:Braidwood|Elizabeth Braidwood]] 13:27, 24 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
::No worries. When I'm making changes like that in the future (unless it is a really straightforward correction) would it be helpful if I make a note on the Talk page explaining the reasons? Or should I simply cite my source in the article itself? --[[User:Iago ap Adam|Iago ap Adam]] 11:33, 25 May 2007 (EDT) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:33, 25 May 2007
The device was reblazoned in June 2006, so the An Tir Roll of Arms may not have the correct blazon currently. The official registered blazon, from the SCA Armorial, is "Or, two vols in fess, bases outward sable, and for augmentation overall on an inescutcheon sable fimbriated an Arabic oil lamp Or." --Iago ap Adam 20:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
- Ah! I went and looked up Michael's blazon in the O&A and it was still the old version. I guess the reblazon hasn't made it into the database yet. I'll try and figure out how to UN-rollback. If you don't see it changed back by the end of the day, feel free to make the change again. My apologies for the confusion (and extra work). --Elizabeth Braidwood 13:27, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
- No worries. When I'm making changes like that in the future (unless it is a really straightforward correction) would it be helpful if I make a note on the Talk page explaining the reasons? Or should I simply cite my source in the article itself? --Iago ap Adam 11:33, 25 May 2007 (EDT)