Template talk:Infobox emblem

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles

Heraldry and vexillology

Template:Infobox emblem is within the scope of the Heraldry and vexillology WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of heraldry and vexillology. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Heraldry and vexillologyWikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyTemplate:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillologyheraldry and vexillology articles

This template was considered for deletion on 2017 September 16. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

The Continental emphasis

It appears to me that the British tradition of heraldry has been neglected in the distribution of this infobox, and some features of that tradition (such as arms having several different valid variants in current use, as with the Royal British arms) are not representable in this box. Lockesdonkey (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can just put the Scottish arms as the "middle" arms and use the same resolution as the English version. -- I. Pankonin (t·c) 09:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a one-article solution, and anyway, there are FOUR acceptable variants (Standard Royal, Scottish Royal, UK Government, and old Scottish Executive). Lockesdonkey (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with non-heraldic emblems

Currently this template is used for both coats of arms following the European heraldic tradition, as well as other forms of emblems which can't be described as heraldic. The issue with this is that in many of the articles for the non-heraldic emblems the infoboxes have been filled with make-shift "blazons" for symbols never meant to be blazonable. For example Emblem of Djibouti has a user-made blazon based on the now-overwritten visual look of the Commons file. Other articles have this issue as well. These "blazons" are not only misleading, as readers lacking the knowledge on how heraldic blazons work might end up believing blazoning can be done for non-heraldic emblems, but also unhelpful because only readers who know the jargon used in English blazoning understand what the descriptions are meant to convey.

While this issue could be solved by just removing the "blazons" in question from the articles, the template currently lacks any alternative option for descriptions of non-heraldic emblems. Further more the template has split the blazons into different categories, separating the crest and supporters etc., while in real grants of arms those are typically included in the blazon. There's also the issue of different European languages using different systems of blazoning. For example some Finnish coats of arms might be hard to properly blazon in English as the arms were created with the Finnish system of blazoning in mind.

In my opinion the blazon options could be removed from the template altogether. While having the heraldic blazon easily at hand in the infobox has its perks, the blazons should probably instead be included in the article itself. This way the issue of improper blazoning of non-heraldic emblems could be avoided, as well as including the original non-English blazons and their translations for articles about coats of arms from non-English heraldic traditions. --Fenn-O-maniC (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dark mode problems

We need to add image_class, image2_class, etc. so we can add "class=skin-invert-image" to make certain emblems work in dark mode. Then someone will need to go through and add this class to certain emblems, for example those that are black on a transparent background. -- Beland (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]