CorrectedErrors are moved here for reference.
I may move items to separate pages, but don't feel obligated to do so.
The October 1970 LoAR seems to be missing from the OandA? entirely, with the exception of Christian of Orange's device, and February 1975 registrations seems to be missing at least the device change by the Barony of the Angels: "Barony of the Angels. Alteration. Gules, a seraph proper, winged Or."
I've been doing research for the Barony of the Angels on the history of their arms, and these two letters enclose the first two iterations of their device, both of which predate the requirement of laurel wreaths on territorial armory.
Aryanhwy replied: > Potential errors like this can be added to the "reporting database > errors" page at http://www.morsulus.org/cgi-data/wiki.pl, so that > Herveus has all the potential errors in one convenient location.
It'd be handy to have this note and the link on the front page of the OandA? itself.
Daniel suggests standing up a separate code to mark "standard augmentations" instead of overloading "a" (which normally marks augmented arms). It occurs to me that 'A' is available. I'm open to the idea.
One of the database consistency checking tools attempts to discover potentially duplicate names that aren't identical. I've extracted the most "promising" items for further investigation...
The Master Index cross-references "lyre" to "musical instrument - lute", but all the lyres are in fact in "musical instrument - harp".
the category files are fixed, but I need to check the ordinary index pages
Lion dragon is not winged:
I want to verify this and change all the lion-dragons en masse...because every lion-dragon is included as Monster-winged...
JML: per the Pictorial Dictionary no wings - "a chimerical monster with the forequarters of a lion ane the body and tail of a wyvern". Ounce-dragon should be in the same category as lion-dragon; no wings and no main (thus an ounce, not a lion).
Herveus: I've removed the Monster, winged categories. Give the description, it seems that "sea lion" might be the best single place; should they also include Dragon? It's the hind parts, so Dragon is misleading, I'd think.
I have found that the years 1990 & 1991 were very bad about not cataloging anything that was on a chief/bend/etc, ie, a tertiary item. So here's some more Ansteorran database errors:
(Morsulus) - indexing of tertiaries and maintained charges is spotty at times... I'm anal about doing it for new stuff, and welcome having it pointed out for old stuff.
In general, I don't apply "in <mumble>" indexing to anything but primary charges, and not always then. For example, charges "in pale" over a per fess/chevron division don't get the treatment.
And even more cateloging errors.
Mistletoe missing
Aside from the missing maintained charge (fixed, by the way), this should be reblazoned "Per bend sinister bendy sinister wavy azure and argent and Or...." The bird posture might well get modified in the process as well.
JML: either blazon is acceptable for the field. Miscategorized - it is not rising to dexter but close to dexter - it has a single foot raised. I'll look at reblazoning because of the bird posture.
Hawk’s bell missing
Again, this begs for a reblazon, although in this case the blue and white stripey part of the field has the white stripes noticably narrower than the blue. Still, it looks an awful lot like "Per bend sinister bendy sinister argent and azure and argent...." As with Richard, I'm changing the indexing to call it a divided field.
Not exactly a database error, but in the Index of the SCA Ordinary, there is no listing either for musical note or note; since it's not obvious that these are found under "symbol", a cross-reference would be nice.
Morsulus: I'll have to check/update the Ordinary index pages...
![[Home]](/wiki.gif)
* The following device associated with this name was registered in February of 2004 (via the West):
Ermine, a cross formy and a chief gules.
Permission to conflict with one CD granted 0402
* The following badge associated with this name was registered in May of 2001 (via the West):
(Fieldless) A cross formy azure.
Permission to conflict with one CD granted 0402
In both cases, the permission to conflict was granted 0204 (i.e., Feb 2004), not 0402 (i.e., April 2002).
0402 *is* February, 2004...dates are yymm
Is this documented anywhere? Since the expanded dates are given in Month Year format, I naturally figured that the abbreviated dates followed the same format. Any chance the dates could become yyyymm?
Not explicitly...but the yymm (and yy-mm) usage seems ubiquitous within the body of Laurel writings (at least insofar as file names go). I'll look at the details of changing it to yyyymm. Disk space is cheap now... :)
The following is in ANNULET:or:1
An Tir, Kingdom of
But I don't see any annulet here.
...well, it *is* a "ring" of three keys, and there is an annulet linking the keys together.
Huh. This might need to be reblazoned then, because I took "a ring of" to be like "an annulet of", e.g., it was referring to the placement of the keys, not the presence of an actual ring. Perhaps "a ring *with* three keys" would do the trick?
Perhaps...the Atlantian badge for the Chatelaine does the "ring of two keys" thing, and I *know* that the annulet is effectively maintained. I've updated the indexing to label it "maintained".
JML: the common blazon is "ring of keys" or "ring of X keys"; only once has it been blazoned as a "ring with three keys".
The OandA? Index takes you from schnecke to "field division other", but there are no schneckes in that category.
I know it's nitpicky, but it has always bothered me that the preface text for ancient devices is missing a "with": "Either the name or the following device associated it (or both) were registered in ..." instead of "...associated with it...".
The Estoile:Charged category is full of estoiles that are not charged. I'm guessing this is because if the feature isn't indexed, the ordinary defaults to showing false positives rather than false negatives; but it does make this category rather useless for conflict checking.
Charged estoiles should be listed under "Mullet - charged", so I'll change the category to be an xref and check the indexing. -- Morsulus
* This appeared in August of 1983 (via Atenveldt).
It appears to have been a mis-spelling of Eric Loren Elcara.
This error was corrected on the 12/1986 LoAR.
Herveus: 0409 has Erik Loren Elcara. Name correction.
His old name, Eric Loren Elcara, is released.
8612 has: Erik Loreu Eleara. Name Correction.
Current armorial records show his device and one badge under the name of Erik Loren Alcara and another badge under the name Erik Loren Elcara. All items should appear under the form in "E".
This will require some further work to sort out exactly what to do.
* This name was referenced in February of 2000 (via the Middle) as joint registrant of a badge with Darkstone, Shire of.
* This branch-name was registered in July of 2005 (via Northshield).
* The following device associated with this name was registered in July of 2005 (via Northshield):
Per fess indented gules and sable, in pale a bezant and a laurel wreath Or.
I don't think this is right. The Feb 2000 LoAR has:
"Darkstone, College of. Branch name (see RETURNS for device)."
and
"Darkstone, College of. Device. Per fess indented gules and sable, a laurel wreath and in chief a roundel Or.
First, there was no petition submitted for the device. Second, the laurel wreath is not closed (or even nearly so), and if it were, there would be no room for a roundel. A properly drawn laurel wreath should not have sufficient room between its tips to place another charge. Third, if properly drawn, the laurel wreath will overlap the complex line of division enough that identifiability is reduced."
and the July 2005 LoAR has:
Darkstone, Shire of. Device. Per fess indented gules and sable, in pale a bezant and a laurel wreath Or.
No badge mentioned anywhere.
* The following badge associated with this name was registered in August of 1999 (via the East):
(Fieldless) A gryphon segreant, its dexter forepaw gauntleted and maintaining a sprig of three holly leaves vert, fructed gules.
for Margaret Holmwood
* This name was registered in October of 1994 (via the East).
* The following device associated with this name was registered in April of 1990 (via the East) and changed/released in May of 1995 (via the East):
Gules, a Norse sun cross and on a chief Or, a red fox's mask between two sprigs of holly, fructed, all proper.
* The following badge associated with this name was registered in February of 1997 (via the East):
Or, three gauntlets fesswise each sustaining a sprig of three holly leaves vert fructed gules.
for Margaret Holmwood
* The following device associated with this name was registered in May of 1995 (via the East):
Or, on a fess vert between two red foxes passant guardant each maintaining in its dexter forepaw a holly leaf fructed proper, a fox passant guardant maintaining in its dexter forepaw a holly leaf Or.
Googling via www.morsulus.org for <Dhomhunullach> gets no hits.
And it looks like this is related somehow to:
* This appeared at some point as a mis-spelling of Étaín Dhomhnullach. The error was corrected in September of 1996 (via the East)
inaccurate name variant correction
Atenvikings This name was referenced in June of 1973 in a registration by Atenveldt, Kingdom of.
The 06/1973 LoAR has the associated badge "Gules, a Norse Sun-cross Sable", but this badge doesn't occur in the OandA? anywhere. And it should, because a search via www.morsulus.org doesn't indicate that it was ever released (and even if it was, it should still have a database record).
* The following device associated with this name was registered in February of 1975 (via the East):
Per fess argent and azure, a sea-boar sejant per fess gules and argent.
* The following device associated with this name was registered in February of 1975 (via the East):
Per fess argent and azure, a sea-boar sejant per fess gules and argent.
Is it just me, or are these two identical entries?
And neither is correct as per the LoAR, which has no hyphen in seaboar.
Duplicate entry removed; need to double-check versus LoAR
* The following device associated with this name was registered in January of 2003 (via the Middle):
Purpure semy of trilliums inverted Or, a bear statant guardant contourny argent.
But it should be wherever the trilliums go. The listing for "Flower - Trillium" in the index says "see Flower - Few petals". However, if you click on the link for "Flower - Few Petals" (that is, for "FLOWER-FEW PETALS"), you get:
"ERROR: FLOWER-FEW PETALS is not a valid description!
No items matched description="FLOWER-FEW PETALS". "
-- Trilliums are all categorized under ROSE, though Bruce ruled there's a CD. This is perhaps a category in process?
* This appeared in June of 1987 (via Atenveldt).
It appears to have been a mis-spelling of Eirianedd o Randir Mwyn.
But I can't find this name, in any form, on the 06/1987 LoAR; a search for www.morsulus.org turns it up on two LoARs?, but only as references for conflicting armory.
Standing Stones, Shire of
* This branch-name was registered in July of 1979 (via the Middle).
But the 07/1979 LoAR has "Standing Stones, Shire of the", with the definite article.
ERROR: FLOWER-FEW PETALS is not a valid description!
No items matched description="FLOWER-FEW PETALS".
* This name was registered in March of 2005 (via Calontir).
Holding name
* The following device associated with this name was registered in March of 2005 (via Calontir):
Per bend sinister Or and purpure, a spiderweb pupure and a keythong's head erased Or.
* The following device associated with this name was registered in February of 2007 (via Calontir):
Per bend sinister Or and purpure, a spiderweb purpure and a keythong's head erased Or.
* The following badge associated with this name was registered at some point and corrected blazon in February of 2007 (via Calontir):
Per bend sinister Or and purpure, a spiderweb pupure and a keythong's head erased Or.
The badge registered "at some point' is clearly the device registered 03/2005.
* This appeared in August of 1992 (via the East).
It appears to have been a mis-spelling of Rúadhán Ó Ceallaigh.
But I can't find Ruadgan O Ceallaigh on either the 08/1992 LoAR or the 08/1992 errata letter; his device is listed on the LoAR, registered to Cathal Ruadhan ap Hywel ap Llewellyn.
ERROR: FLOWER-FEW PETALS is not a valid description!
No items matched description="FLOWER-FEW PETALS".
There seem to be some serious and systematic problem with the categorization of flowers; I know that the problem with trilliums being grouped with roses has been noted for at least a year now. Any ideas when we can expect these to be fixed?
Alphyns are set in the ordinary to look under griffins (GRIFFIN). However, they are of no type difference to the MONSTER-TYGER instead: [Returning Sable, papelonny argent, an alphyn passant Or] Visual conflict with ... Vert a heraldic tiger passant Or mane and tuft of the tail argent. There is clearly a CD for the changes to the field, but the visual similarities of the primary charges, combined with the lack of a clear heraldic difference in period, is too strong to grant the necessary second CD. [12a/93, p.18] I found no precedent tying them to griffins or keythongs.
http://oanda.sca.org/oanda_desc.cgi?p=FLOWER-FEW%20PETALS
ERROR: FLOWER-FEW PETALS is not a valid description!
No items matched description="FLOWER-FEW PETALS"
Giovanni Orsini da Venezia, "Argent, two falcons respectant gules and a chief triangular azure" -- The chief is indexed as gules.