Talk:Enbunjulated: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
May I (on one of my now-brief visits here (due to access at work being restricted)) concur with Master Teceangl. Whilst it may well fall into the funny-once category, I submit that it does not merit the formal recognition that en-wiki-ing would involve. Perhaps when a couple of new Kingdoms have used this in their armorial (and regalia includes ''the crowns of the seven kings, and the rods of the Five Wizards'') we could revisit a draft of the entry -- [[User:Simoncursitor|Simoncursitor]] 19:39, 4 March 2009 (EST) |
May I (on one of my now-brief visits here (due to access at work being restricted)) concur with Master Teceangl. Whilst it may well fall into the funny-once category, I submit that it does not merit the formal recognition that en-wiki-ing would involve. Perhaps when a couple of new Kingdoms have used this in their armorial (and regalia includes ''the crowns of the seven kings, and the rods of the Five Wizards'') we could revisit a draft of the entry -- [[User:Simoncursitor|Simoncursitor]] 19:39, 4 March 2009 (EST) |
||
Perhaps it should be moved from the heraldry category into a humour category or somesuch. [[User:AlexandreDavigne|AlexandreDavigne]] 23:58, 4 March 2009 (EST) |
|||
The only reference to it on this wiki is in a fictional example [[badge]] for a fictional [[order]] (cf. [[Sumptuary law]]). I have changed this reference, and agree that if "[[enbunjulated]]" is not commonplace in any [[SCA]] or [[Recreationist_sites|other historical group]], and is not historically relevant, then it should not be here, regardless of how funny it may be. While we may not be wikipedia and have their rules, I like to think that [[Cunnan]] can provide basic facts to an individual that may help them furthering their research and understanding elsewhere. This page is not "fact" in any way. - [[User:Cian|Cian Gillebhrath]] 09:54, 5 March 2009 (EST) |
|||
Latest revision as of 09:54, 5 March 2009
NOTE: This was an odd thing to stumble across. I invented "enbunjulated" many years ago as a joke. The actual meaning was "attached with a bunji cord" and the first blazon I gave was "a weaselope enbunjalated on a cross," which was a reference to the fact that certain drawings of Celtic deer look more like weasels with horns, thus "weaselope" by analogy with "jackalope" [[1]]. I note that the only reference that pops up on a google search is this: "Sable, a lemming proper in its stupidity enbunjalated to chief." Bunjie-jumping weaselopes, which still makes me giggle. AlexandreDavigne 00:23, 23 January 2008 (EST)
This posture has never been used in the SCA and its inclusion here is either misinformation or simply unadvisable. I'd really like to see this entry deleted - SCA heraldry has enough problems without us perpetrating more on ourselves. Teceangl (College of Arms Herald)
May I (on one of my now-brief visits here (due to access at work being restricted)) concur with Master Teceangl. Whilst it may well fall into the funny-once category, I submit that it does not merit the formal recognition that en-wiki-ing would involve. Perhaps when a couple of new Kingdoms have used this in their armorial (and regalia includes the crowns of the seven kings, and the rods of the Five Wizards) we could revisit a draft of the entry -- Simoncursitor 19:39, 4 March 2009 (EST)
Perhaps it should be moved from the heraldry category into a humour category or somesuch. AlexandreDavigne 23:58, 4 March 2009 (EST)
The only reference to it on this wiki is in a fictional example badge for a fictional order (cf. Sumptuary law). I have changed this reference, and agree that if "enbunjulated" is not commonplace in any SCA or other historical group, and is not historically relevant, then it should not be here, regardless of how funny it may be. While we may not be wikipedia and have their rules, I like to think that Cunnan can provide basic facts to an individual that may help them furthering their research and understanding elsewhere. This page is not "fact" in any way. - Cian Gillebhrath 09:54, 5 March 2009 (EST)
