Talk:Sable (heraldry)

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
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 t o integrate into the body text, but where that information may be placed in the infobox. Prominent examples include the ISO 639 codes in and most of the parameters in. 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, and the OMIM and other medical database codes of 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)
 * If it's truly trivial, it shouldn't be in the article at all, even in the infobox. And local consensus—even of an organized WikiProject—can't override wider consensus. You asked for policy: there is the applicable guideline. Place it in both the text and the infobox, with the reference in the text. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a manual of style, not a policy, and it does not support your stance. If you have an issue with trivial information appearing in the infoboxes then I suggest you reach out to WP:Heraldry and start a dialogue. You are the sole dissenting voice, so I think we can close this discussion unless you have any new sources to provide to support your claim that the poetic interpretations are key to understanding tinctures. Giltsbeach (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a guideline, and is quite clear that there should be limited and justified exceptions. My starting a section at the WikiProject asking where consensus was reached appears to have overlapped with you responding here demanding I do so and then again edit-warring on the article, with an accusation of vandalism. You previously edit-warred against and  and took them to AN/I when you didn't get your way, which was what brought me to the article. JalenFolf said there that you had not removed the information from the article, but you have in fact removed it from the text, which is contrary to the applicable guideline. From where I sit, you are one against three on that issue. Since you have asserted that other articles present the information only in the infobox, the general principle should be discussed at the WikiProject, but you have failed to show either a policy-based reason or a consensus. Accusing others of going against consensus without showing one, or of vandalism (I haven't checked how long you've been editing here; have you read WP:VANDAL? and please note that WP:CIVIL is policy) does not help make your case that an exception should be made to the guideline on infoboxes. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Mako001 didn't comment here and JalenFolf has no objection. You can't presume them to be on your side. Furthermore, all other tincture articles use the infobox. Your objections do not have consensus. Giltsbeach (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of "on my side". Both have reverted you in the past on this article, but not apparently on the basis of the applicable guideline. (And I haven't examined your past edits, so I don't know whether you levelled an accusation of vandalism at them in addition to dragging them to a drama-board.) Your refusal to refrain from reverting while discussion happens is noted, and I remain puzzled by your insistence, as well as by other editorial decisions of yours, such as splitting up the text of an article section by shoving the gallery into the middle of it. I see you have now added unreferenced material to the etymology section. We clearly disagree about whether your changes improve the article, but the deviation from the infobox guideline actually degrades the encyclopaedia, and so the matter needs to be discussed. Not just shouted down by you. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be taking this personally. Is everything ok? Giltsbeach (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)