Talk:Sable (heraldry): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Yngvadottir (talk | contribs) →Poetic meanings section: Response with quotes from the relevant guideline page. This edit is not an endorsement of the WMF. |
Giltsbeach (talk | contribs) →Poetic meanings section: Reply |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
:::Is there a specific policy you can point to that says this is "wrong"? [[User:Giltsbeach|Giltsbeach]] ([[User talk:Giltsbeach|talk]]) 11:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
:::Is there a specific policy you can point to that says this is "wrong"? [[User:Giltsbeach|Giltsbeach]] ([[User talk:Giltsbeach|talk]]) 11:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::It's right there in [[WP:Infoboxes]]: {{tq|When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below).}} And further down on references: {{tq|If the material needs a reference (see WP:MINREF for guidelines) and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. But editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article.}} All of which derives from Wikipedia being first and foremost an encyclopedia, rather than a machine-readable database. (And from the resulting principle that having an infobox at all is not mandatory.) The exceptions alluded to appear a little below the rule: {{tq|As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult t<nowiki>o integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox. Prominent examples include the ISO 639 codes in {{Infobox language}}</nowiki> and most of the parameters in <nowiki>{{Chembox}}</nowiki>.}} There's also a note further down that in some instances, again involving templates, practice often deviates from the guideline: {{tq|Be aware that although all information in an infobox ideally should also be found in the main body of an article, there isn't perfect compliance with this guideline. For example, the full taxonomic hierarchy in <nowiki>{{Taxobox}}</nowiki>, and the OMIM and other medical database codes of <nowiki>{{Infobox disease}}</nowiki> are often not found in the main article content. The infobox is also often the location of the most significant, even only, image in an article.}} The material you want to supplant the article with in this instance plainly doesn't fall under any such exemption; it's valid to have it ''also'' in the infobox for readers who look first at them, but it should appear with the necessary reference in the actual article. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 22:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
::::It's right there in [[WP:Infoboxes]]: {{tq|When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below).}} And further down on references: {{tq|If the material needs a reference (see WP:MINREF for guidelines) and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. But editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article.}} All of which derives from Wikipedia being first and foremost an encyclopedia, rather than a machine-readable database. (And from the resulting principle that having an infobox at all is not mandatory.) The exceptions alluded to appear a little below the rule: {{tq|As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult t<nowiki>o integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox. Prominent examples include the ISO 639 codes in {{Infobox language}}</nowiki> and most of the parameters in <nowiki>{{Chembox}}</nowiki>.}} There's also a note further down that in some instances, again involving templates, practice often deviates from the guideline: {{tq|Be aware that although all information in an infobox ideally should also be found in the main body of an article, there isn't perfect compliance with this guideline. For example, the full taxonomic hierarchy in <nowiki>{{Taxobox}}</nowiki>, and the OMIM and other medical database codes of <nowiki>{{Infobox disease}}</nowiki> are often not found in the main article content. The infobox is also often the location of the most significant, even only, image in an article.}} The material you want to supplant the article with in this instance plainly doesn't fall under any such exemption; it's valid to have it ''also'' in the infobox for readers who look first at them, but it should appear with the necessary reference in the actual article. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 22:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::The poetic interpretation isn't a key fact, it's trivial. A fad. JalenFolf removed his objections. The rest of the tincture articles follow this style. The community has already come to a consensus on this. [[User:Giltsbeach|Giltsbeach]] ([[User talk:Giltsbeach|talk]]) 12:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 12:16, 5 April 2023
 | Heraldry and vexillology Stub‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
.png){kind=small} | Color Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Blazons of Hungarian and Polish armory
For the record, I have quoted the Hungarian blazons in Hungarian as they appear in Nyulászi-Straub's book. The translations are my own, based on the color reproductions which accompany the text and the German parallel text. The Hungarian word for sable is fekete, and the German text uses schwarz(en), so I can be certain these arms do not have tarnished sable (as some of the other apparently sable arms in the volume do).
As for the blazons from Szymański, I have quoted his English blazons as given in the text. He provides both Polish and English blazons, and since the English may be quoted directly from the source material, I see no need to burden the article with the Polish (since most readers will be looking only for the English anyway). --EncycloPetey 00:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note that the "Corvin" listed under Polish heraldry isn't Polish at all: it is the coat of arms of the Hunyadi family, specifically king Matthias of Hungary (reigned 1458-1490). Hence the name of his famous library, Bibliotheca Corviniana; and his illegitimate son, Corvin János. (It's a case of reverse canting: the arms came first, the matching name second.) --Márti 70.20.229.244 (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Sable a heraldic fur?
The sable is indeed a fur-bearing beast. The name of the heraldic tincture does indeed come from its name. And the multiple examples in the article of sable charges on gules fields are valid, along with many others.
However, none of this establishes the urban myth that sable was ever considered one of the heraldic furs. If anyone can cite that claim in any well-informed authority on the art and science of heraldry, I shall be astonished. Rather, the concentration on English heraldry in English-language works ignored the variability of practice in other parts of Europe, someone invented this plausible sounding explanation, and it spread.
There are, e.g., many cases of gules charges on azure in 16th-c. Portuguese heraldry, as exemplified in the Livro da Nobreza e Perfeição das Armas and the Livro do Armeiro-Mor, aka the Livre du Grand Armurier. No reclassification of either tincture as a fur is necessary for those to exist. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Poetic meanings section
@Giltsbeach: With respect, what makes you think this section is not needed? Four times you have removed this section in adding material you found, and you have not explained this removal. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's a stub subsection. The information is already found in the infobox. Every other heraldic tincture article places this information in the infobox. Giltsbeach (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Then every other heraldic tincture article is wrong to do it that way. The infobox is not meant to replace the article text, but to organise information that the reader may want to consult rapidly (as here), or that is clearer in table/list format (such as teams an athlete has played for or medals they won at the Olympics). Some readers prefer to only look at the infobox, but the presence of a reference for that information is an indication that it should also be in the article itself. I've moved the additional detail of an alternative name into the article text to reduce the bulk in the infobox. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Is there a specific policy you can point to that says this is "wrong"? Giltsbeach (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's right there in WP:Infoboxes:
When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below).
And further down on references:If the material needs a reference (see WP:MINREF for guidelines) and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. But editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article.
All of which derives from Wikipedia being first and foremost an encyclopedia, rather than a machine-readable database. (And from the resulting principle that having an infobox at all is not mandatory.) The exceptions alluded to appear a little below the rule:As with any guideline, there will be exceptions where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox. Prominent examples include the ISO 639 codes in {{Infobox language}} and most of the parameters in {{Chembox}}.
There's also a note further down that in some instances, again involving templates, practice often deviates from the guideline:Be aware that although all information in an infobox ideally should also be found in the main body of an article, there isn't perfect compliance with this guideline. For example, the full taxonomic hierarchy in {{Taxobox}}, and the OMIM and other medical database codes of {{Infobox disease}} are often not found in the main article content. The infobox is also often the location of the most significant, even only, image in an article.
The material you want to supplant the article with in this instance plainly doesn't fall under any such exemption; it's valid to have it also in the infobox for readers who look first at them, but it should appear with the necessary reference in the actual article. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)- The poetic interpretation isn't a key fact, it's trivial. A fad. JalenFolf removed his objections. The rest of the tincture articles follow this style. The community has already come to a consensus on this. Giltsbeach (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's right there in WP:Infoboxes:
- Is there a specific policy you can point to that says this is "wrong"? Giltsbeach (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Then every other heraldic tincture article is wrong to do it that way. The infobox is not meant to replace the article text, but to organise information that the reader may want to consult rapidly (as here), or that is clearer in table/list format (such as teams an athlete has played for or medals they won at the Olympics). Some readers prefer to only look at the infobox, but the presence of a reference for that information is an indication that it should also be in the article itself. I've moved the additional detail of an alternative name into the article text to reduce the bulk in the infobox. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)