Talk:Armorial of the House of Plantagenet

Assessment

I gave this a B rating but it looks good to me. Might need some introductory material, but I'm not familiar with these types of articles on Wikipedia. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

tressure of France?

“ The Royal arms to this day continue to show the lillies of France, but only as a part of the double tressure flory counterflory gules of the quartered arms of Scotland. ”

I revert this because it is misleading on two points. Not all fleurs-de-lis allude to France, and there is no consensus that the Scottish tressure has a French origin. Secondly, the word continue implies that the Scottish tressure has something to do with the Plantagenet claim on France! —Tamfang (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot disagree with your reasoning. Perhaps rephrased it might provide extra interest/element of curiosity to the article. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC))

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 moved. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Armorial of Plantagenet → List of coats of arms of the House of Plantagenet
• Armorial of the House of Bonaparte → List of coats of arms of the House of Bonaparte
• Capetian Armorial → List of coats of arms of the Capetian dynasty
• Bernadotte Armorial → List of coats of arms of the House of Bernadotte

– This title more accurately reflects the contents of this list. This is not an article about a notable published roll of arms; this is a list of coats of arms which in itself represents a roll of arms (or armorial). Thus, "List of coats of arms" is a more accurate indication of what may be found here. Also, Plantagenet in this context is rather vague, "House of Plantagenet" is more precise. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I support the move, but I know very little about the subject matter. Somehow Capetian Armorial has gotten onto my watchlist, and it always seems incomplete to me--there isn't an introduction explaining what it's all about. If it's merely a list, it should be called a list. On the other hand, it seems to be more than a mere list, with illustrations, etc. Maybe the renames should be to "Coats of Arms of XXX". If the three-part renaming is not done, at least make Capetian Armorial into "Armorial of YYY", and explain what an armorial is. Lou Sander (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lou! It isn't at all unusual for list-class articles (usually titled "List of...") to have some introductory text. A lead section can be useful to introduce and define the topic and scope of the list, often with a link to a main article. See List of sovereign states for an example of a list-class article which requires some technical definition of its scope and criteria for inclusion. These lists are a little more straight-forward in that respect, but since the topics of these lists are the coats of arms themselves, the images here are integral to the list itself. But we also have many other lists with illustrations for each entry (see List of Missouri state symbols or Carnival Cruise Lines for examples). Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Like Wilhelm said, "Plantagenet Amorial" or "Armorial of Plantagenet" makes it seem like this list is an otherwise notable armorial or roll of arms, when it's really just an interesting list crafted by Wikipedians. Unless we're duplicating a legit "Plantagenet Amorial", I think "List of coats of arms ..." is a better title.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

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.