Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Blazon

Archives

Several 2009 discussions at WT:HERALDRY

"Sight blazoning"

I wonder if it would be worth mentioning on this page about "sight blazoning" (a WP editor writing a blazon based upon an image, rather than translating a written blazon from one language to another), as to whether or not it is accepted practice on Wikipedia. My sense is that it is not accepted practice (with exception for demo shields, which do not concern the arms of [someone]), as this could be considered a form of WP:OR and would likely lead to a proliferation of inaccurate but authoritative-sounding blazons throughout Wikipedia's articles. Blazons (of the arms of [someone]) appearing in Wikipedia's articles should have a reliable source, and should not just be "made up" by editors, but is this within the scope of this style guide? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

Could the term "Blazon" first be defined, before discussing what and how to deal with it, them? HalFonts (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation?

Please note that this page has been nominated to be consolidated with the primary Manual of Style page. Please join the discussion at the MOS talk page in order to discus the possibility of merging this page with the MOS. Thank you.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has rejected that nomination. However, the purpose of this page still needs to be clarified --Jubilee♫clipman 03:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Blazon → Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Blazon – Move this style guide to a subpage of MOS to bring it into line with other topic-specific style guides, which are listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Contents. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 02:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was apparently created per the relevant WikiProject, as discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Archive 2009#Style guide for English blazon, but never really changed in the past few years. Do WP:HV members still endorse this? Is the WikiProject still active? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology seems to have little recent activity besides automated bots. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My last question is important because if the Wikiproject is inactive, or only a couple of people support and enforce these guidelines, it should really be either marked as Template:Historical (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) or moved back to the WikiProject subpage. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. The Heraldry project progresses in fits and starts, but in terms of this particular style guide, it would be a mistake to have it subsumed by the MoS project, because knowledge of blazon is specialized. The MoS should point to this, but it would not be valuable to have non-experts deciding on best policy regarding blazon. -- Evertype·✆ 17:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still do work for the project on a fairly regular basis. I regularly browse through unassessed and stub H/V articles to reassess, and I occasionally find an article to work on for a while, to get it to the next level. I really couldn't say how active others are in terms of that kind of work, and I don't know of any way to measure that, so I would say just because the project page is relatively quiet doesn't mean we aren't still at work improving H/V articles, sometimes even coordinating our efforts through user talk page discussions. So I guess my question for Zzyzx11 is how would you define an active/inactive project? I think it has gone from making decisions on how to organize WP's h/v-related content to simply doing the quiet labor of slowly improving those articles. My question for Evertype is this: If we move WP:Blazon to WP:MoS/Blazon, does that really imply that folks at MoS who are unfamiliar with heraldry and blazoning are going to meddle with the consensus already established by the H/V community? I doubt they are any more likely to do so after this move than if we simply linked it from MoS without moving, and I think it needs to be linked from MoS anyway for better visibility to editors outside the H/V project who encounter blazoning and may not be sure how best to deal with it. After all, isn't that really WP:Blazon's target audience? Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.