Talk:Cercelée

Better Page Name

To make this more uniform with the other cross and heraldry designs, should we retitle this page as "Cross Cercelée" instead? Dulcimerist 05:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

While assessing articles for WP:HV I've come across a few articles like this one (eg Bottony), which are more or less just dictionary definitions of heraldic terms, taken from the 1728 Cyclopedia. Most of them have very few pages which link to them. I can't help thinking maybe they would be better as redirects to a larger article which deals with them, for example, if a cross was the only heraldic charge which appeared cercelée, then it would make more sense to me to make Cercelée and Cross cercelée (which currently redirects here btw) redirects to Cross, with Cross Cercelée an entry in the table of heraldic crosses (which in fact it is at the moment, with basically the same information as here). Dr pda 13:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So your suggestion would be to have "Cross xyz" and "xyz Cross" entries all redirect to the Cross entry, as they're all contained there; and "xyz" plain heraldry pages redirect to a single Heraldry page full of them all? That would make a lot of sense in simplifying everything! Wiki users who search a specific cross or heraldry design would most likely want to arrive at a page where they can compare it with other cross or heraldry designs, anyway. Where should this idea be proposed? --Dulcimerist 20:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would go as far as having all heraldic terms point to just one page, nor redirecting all the 'Cross xyz' entries to cross, just to make everything neat and tidy. To give some specific examples, Cross Fitchy, Cross fleury, and Cross moline have only a sentence or two and a picture of the cross, and hardly any articles which link to them. There's not really much more that can be added, so for these it would make sense to turn them into redirects to Cross#In heraldry, which has the same information. On the other hand Cross pattée, for example, has a longer article and a number of pages which link to it, so this article should stay as it is, and the entry in the table in Cross can link to it, as it does at the moment.

Actually, I've just had a look through Category:Heraldry stubs, and actually there are very few of these sort of stubs. It is basically only the cross ones, and the few Cyclopedia ones I had already seen (Arrondi, Cabossed, Cercelée, and possibly Cleché,Compone and Naiant). Most of the specific heraldry terms don't have a stub article but are instead collected on appropriate pages as I was suggesting, e.g. Charge (heraldry), Line (heraldry), Divisions of the field, Variations of the field, etc.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology would be the place to talk about heraldic matters in general, but since there are so few articles, maybe leaving a note on the talk page of each would be sufficient. --Dr pda 22:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I do have an old symbols book from 1938 in my possession, which illustrates and describes 175 different cross designs. Most of those are heraldry. Perhaps I can flesh out a few of the small articles and add more cross designs when I have time... --Dulcimerist 21:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)