Talk:Armorial of the United States

Hatnote to Seals of the U.S. states

I am removing the hatnote pointing to Seals of the U.S. states, because:

1. The hatnote guideline says that linking to articles highly (directly) related is a reason not to have a hatnote, instead use the link in the text and/or in a see also section. Hatnotes are meant to link to articles with similar name but (mostly) unrelated. Quite the opposite of this case.
2. There are several related pages: Seals of the U.S. states, Flags of the U.S. states, Lists of U.S. state insignia, Seals of the Governors of the U.S. States, ... I see no reason to to have special treatment for one of them.

Greetings! - Nabla (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Article conversion

Is there any objection to the following: 1) turning this into a list-class article and 2) replacing the images with vintage (1875) high resolution color scans of at least 40 (more than the existing 25) of the state coats of arms?--Godot13 (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

1) If that means the gallery is converted to a table with a brief description of each coat of arms, that would be an improvement in my opinion. That would also make it possible to move the adoption dates and sources (currently in the lead) to the main list.

2) Currently all coat of arms images are in SVG format, meaning they can be scaled indefinitely. Why would replacing them with scanned raster versions be better? Also, doesn't the article currently already list all official state coat of arms, or are there twenty-two more states that have coats of arms? SiBr₄ (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have access to an illustrated book of colored engravings of the U.S. Coats of Arms from 1876. They provide an artistic detail that the SVG files could never come close to capturing. This may require it's own list/article. In 1876 there were 45 coats of arms so yes, there are many missing from the present list. Some have also changed over time (e.g., as the central feature on most state seals, the arms for at least 8 states radically changed between 1876 and the early 1900's).-Godot13 (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

According to this article, only eighteen states currently have official coats of arms. Have so many states stopped using their CoA or are you referring to their seals?

The coats of arms that have changed since 1876 could be added to a new section called "Historical coats of arms", to which the coats of arms of independent Texas and Hawaii could also be moved. For the ones that haven't, it should probably be judged individually whether the SVG or the scan is better.

Are the illustrations of the coats of arms official drawings? If so, that would be an additional reason to replace the SVGs with scans. If they're not official but still notable by themselves, a new article about them could be created. SiBr₄ (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

SiBr₄- It took a little while, but I followed your suggestion. This new article Historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876 is currently under review as a featured list candidate. Perhaps you might consider commenting/reviewing it? Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw you added the illustrated coat of arms to each state seal's article, but hadn't found the new list yet. I added a link to it to this article's "see also" section. SiBr₄ (talk) 11:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Confusion over numbers?

The article (and the one about Heraldry in the US) claims that only eighteen states have adopted "official" coats of arms... yet this article shows 24 state coats of arms, one for the District of Columbia, one for Puerto Rico and the three old versions of Texas and Hawaii from the time of their independence... So... WHICH coats are "official" and what is with the other 6? Do Texas and Hawaii even use a coat of arms anymore as it is also noted that they no longer use them, but that could also be meant to refer to the slightly differing version before joining the USA... As it is, this is VERY confusing. --5.146.47.75 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

How is this list improved...?

With the addition of the beginning section? I know I haven't been active in quite a while (I wrote the list, scanned and restored the images, took it through the FL process), but frankly it seems to diminish the cohesion of the list by adding a ton of unnecessary images that don't related to purpose - a snapshot in time, specifically 1876 - which was showcasing some fantastic engraving and artistry to illustrate a period of history. Is this still a FL? Godot13 (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Giants2008, PresN, and The Rambling Man: This really no longer seems like a FL. I've been inactive for quite a while. As the original creator of this list, can I make substantial revisions (reversions) or it is stuck like this?--Godot13 (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's really not much to do with the FL process, delegates or director. If it's considered no longer to be good enough for FL then it could be listed at FLRC. You could boldly undo the edits and start a talkpage discussion I suppose. I'm sorry: it's clearly been distressing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Understood TRM...-Godot13 (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• The list that was featured was about historical seals from 1876 by Louis Prang. The list has been hijacked and the topic completely changed. I plan to undo/revert changes beginning 9 March 2019 where a user copied and pasted the entire FL onto an existing article (and copied the FL promotion template as well). Then I will ask for the redirect from the original article to this article to be reverted/cancelled.--Godot13 (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, the article in question was different, and concerned the book State Arms of the Union. I reckon there could be a separate article about that book (armorial/roll of arms). - Ssolbergj (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)