For example, I think I shall change all the "Field treatment, seme (x)" names to "Seme on field, x" (except for "ermined", which shall become simply another field treatment). I'll leave cross-references in for now for the benefit of people who expect to find these categories where they presently are. Another benefit is that it removes a half-dozen or so items from F. :)
Please add requests for cross-references as well.
Ary has asked for one for "calygreyhound".
I'm looking at categories that should be further subdivided.
CRAC:tertiary (nearly 500) -- divide by tincture or by count (don't know which would be better
ROSE:2 (298) -- dividing by tincture gets two big chunks (argent, gules) and a batch of much smaller ones. dividing by group appears to be about half secondary and a quarter each primary and tertiary.
CRESCENT:3 (357) -- probably by tincture or group
CRESCENT:2 (299) and CRESCENT:4+ (151) could be split as well
FOIL-3 (321) -- tincture or group or count...gotta check each way
Any thoughts on other categories that could stand splitting or how you'd prefer to see a category split would be welcome.
These are the categories that came up with 250 or more items in the 4Q05 database.
Ary: While not yet at 250, HEAD-BIRD has 241, and this would be really useful split up into color categories.
FIRE AND FLAME has 347 entries -- splitting these by number or color would be very useful.
Ary's recommendations for splitting up the big categories:
Huh. I never knew this category even existed, since it doesn't appear to have its own entry in the Index. I think splitting these up by tincture would make the most sense.
Splitting these up by number gets my vote.
And these by tincture.
This definitely could stand to be split up. By tincture would probably at this point be more useful than by number.
Additionally, Monster-Phoenix is now up to 272. It'd be nice to have it split up into color (since most of the arms have just one phoenix, I'm not sure how much use splitting up by number would be).
BIRD:3 or more is up to 362 items; splitting this by color would be helpful.
Since we never check anything by tertiary charge (as far as I know), it is probably not really worth splitting things up.
What bothers me the most right now is that due to various precedent changes, there are three categories that are 0 points away from a rose, FLOWER-ROSE, FOIL-5, FLOWER-FEW PETALS and possible FOIL-4 (I don't remember the latest precedent). A number of natural flower also have conflicts with all three categories (or possible with the other FOIL). This makes checking roses (and violets, etc.) truly difficult, especially as only roses are subdivided.
When I had my ordinary of recent submissions, I divided up all flowers and foils into the following categories:
flower, few petals, flower, rose, all the foils, and flower, multipetals all fell into flower, affronty. Given the current group, I would add flower, bouquet and possible flower, multi-floretted (depending on what actually goes in there). If there is no good division between cup shape flowers and irises, they would also be combined.
This makes flower, affronty a huge category, but most of the charges in there are 0 points apart from each other, so I haven't found a good way to split it by type (one can possible split out multi-petaled). I divided up by group, number and tincture.
Morsulus: I can continue to index the different flower types as I do and then rewrite the category names when I generate the export database so they all come together under the same heading. Then we get to pick the heading... :) Clearly, that category would need to be divided by number, tincture, and maybe group.
Elsbeth: That is fine (and also more resilient to rule changes), although I would like not to have to enter a type in the search engines more than once. For my program this already happens with mullets from the line
mullet - see also caltrap and estoile and sun
in the category file.
This should only be a change to the .cat file, but I would like to be able to search only on the direction of a posture (to sinister, to dexter, affronty). This is because there is almost always a CD between these three types of postures. I think all we need is entries such as
added to the category file. I may try those changes myself (on my own file) and see how they work. Bird postures could use it two, although the boundaries are fuzzier (rising displayed is both to dexter and affronty in some ways)
Also, the results of the bird precedent (http://heraldry.sca.org/laurel/precedents/francois/wreath.html#BIRDSub) should probably be reflected in the bird_type feature. Again, this should only be a change to the .cat file.
Trilliums either need their own category or Flower - Few Petals needs to be activated. Trilliums are currently mixed in with roses, from which they get a CD.
Elsbeth: It may be possible to make Flower - Few Petals to really be 3 or fewer petals (i.e. a CD from a rose). These were merged because it contained flowers such as violets which has 0 CDs from a rose.
* The following device associated with this name was registered in August of 1995 (via Ansteorra): Sable, a chess rook within a bordure argent.is in CASTLE:argent:1. Given that there is X.2 difference between a properly drawn chess rook and a tower, chess rooks should probably get their own category:
"Matillis atte Hethe. Badge. Argent, three bendlets purpure and overall a tower azure. This is clear of the badge of Serena Lascelles, (Fieldless) A chessrook azure. In December 2001 Laurel ruled:
[Sable, a chess rook argent] This is clear of conflict with ... Sable, a tower argent. There is substantial difference between a tower and a properly drawn chess rook, so RfS? X.2 applies. In the LoAR of October 1996, it was stated that there was "nothing for the difference between a tower and a chess-rook". This precedent is hereby overturned: a tower and a chess rook were considered different charges in period and have substantial visual difference. The period heraldic chess rook is drawn consistently in a form where the top is forked into two prominent curled points. This was a standard depiction for the period chess piece, as illustrated in Caxton's 1474 "Game and Playe of the Chesse". The period heraldic chess rook does not resemble any sort of fortification and cannot be mistaken for a tower. On examining the collated commentary for the October 1996 ruling, it appears that perhaps the commenters mistakenly believed that the particular chess rook in the possible conflict was drawn as a tower, rather than as a period chess rook. [William fitzBubba, 12/01, A-East]
"Serena's chess rook is a properly drawn, period chess rook and thus has a substantial difference from a tower." [LoAR 01/2007]
Right now in the Index to the Ordinary "Monster - alphyn" sends the reader to "Monster - griffin". Given that there is (so far as I can tell) a CD between a griffin and an alphyn, and no CD between an alphyn and a tyger, it would be more useful for the cross-reference to go to Monster - Tyger.
Can we get an index entry for "awl"?
There are 290 entries in "Flower - Rose - 4 or more". Any chance these could be split up, perhaps by tincture?
There's 359 entries in MONSTER-PHOENIX. It'd be nice to split this up, either by tincture or number.