Talk:Millrind
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Lobsterthermidor in topic why nominative/accusative?
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Spellyng edit
Gotta say I've never seen it with y in my heraldry books. —Tamfang (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- The above comment applies to the original name of this article, "Rynd". Indeed, if Google, is to be trusted, the most common name for the part is "millrind" (3450 hits), followed by "mill rind" (1020) "millrynd" (579), "mill rynd" (159). Also the combination "rind"+"heraldry" gets far more hits (10,100) than "rynd"+"heraldry" (857). So, since the article is about the millstone clamp part, with only a section on heraldry, I have moved it to "millrind",and will update the lead section accordingly. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Proposal to split off the heraldry section edit
The heraldry section has little in common with the lead section, which is about the millstone clamp; the only connection is an ancient inspiration for the symbol. Since both topics seem substantial enough on their own, the heraldry section should eventually be split off to a separate article, e.g. "rind (heraldry)". --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Seems a reasonable proposition. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree. The heraldic device of a fer de moline is an accurate depiction of an "iron of a mill" (literally translated from French) or millstone clamp, pure and simple. I do not follow what is meant above by "an ancient inspiration for the symbol". In the mediaeval age of heraldry such an item was in common use in industry carried on in mills, and therefore was instantly recognisable to all. It could therefore have been adopted as an armourial by a family which derived its wealth from milling, but more commonly as a canting device for the family name "Ferre". There is not enough to say about each subject to form valid separate articles larger than stubs, rather the inclusion of both aspects, practical and heraldic, adds strength and interest to a single article. Other common mediaeval heraldic charges were horseshoes and water buckets, and many other commonly used items, which likewise surely do not merit separate articles of a purely heraldic aspect.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC))
- As no further response received, have removed the "split" tag:"Split|rind (heraldry)|date=July 2009". (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC))
- Disagree. The heraldic device of a fer de moline is an accurate depiction of an "iron of a mill" (literally translated from French) or millstone clamp, pure and simple. I do not follow what is meant above by "an ancient inspiration for the symbol". In the mediaeval age of heraldry such an item was in common use in industry carried on in mills, and therefore was instantly recognisable to all. It could therefore have been adopted as an armourial by a family which derived its wealth from milling, but more commonly as a canting device for the family name "Ferre". There is not enough to say about each subject to form valid separate articles larger than stubs, rather the inclusion of both aspects, practical and heraldic, adds strength and interest to a single article. Other common mediaeval heraldic charges were horseshoes and water buckets, and many other commonly used items, which likewise surely do not merit separate articles of a purely heraldic aspect.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC))
why nominative/accusative? edit
- Tempore corrected to Tempus, well spotted
Since this edit undid my correction from tempus (nominative/accusative) to tempore (locative: in the time of...), I'm wondering what was "well spotted". —Tamfang (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, your correction re-instated, misunderstanding on my part. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC))