Talk:Sun (heraldry)

This article is supposed to explain its topic, not just be an image gallery... AnonMoos (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Does this help? —Tamfang (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

External links

I removed the ext.links section, which listed several large armorials but no direct links to anything relating to suns; the reader was invited to search those sites for relevant material. I don't see the point of repeating such general matter in every heraldry article. —Tamfang (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oops, and then I imported it again from Sun in splendour. I find Younger Tamfang's reasoning persuasive, so I'll now delete it again. —Tamfang (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger with Sun in splendour

I missed the fact that there was a merger proposal at Sun in splendour. But, no case has been made to merge the two articles, and I would not support it unless a clear reasoned and persuasive case is made to do so. The sun in splendour is a distinct subset within Sun (heraldry), and it is perfectly fitting for it to have its own article, linked to the wider article as it always has been. Many of the images in this article (Sun (heraldry)) do not show the sun in splendour, which is a specific device with alternating straight and wavy rays. It was simply incorrect, in my view, to merge the text of the other article into this one, as though "sun" and "sun in splendour" are identical - they are not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

However, this page is basically an image gallery, which is frowned on at Wikipedia.... AnonMoos (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I know. So, I don't understand why the content of Sun in splendour was inserted into this article - rather than taking what seems to me to be the more logical way forward of keeping that article as it was, and improving the Sun (heraldry) article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

All the sources I can find at the moment say or imply that in splendor – namely, with a face and 12–16 alternating rays – is the usual depiction of a sun, rather than a clearly distinct type. (Rietstap, Fox-Davies, Parker, Velde, USAF. Friar has no entry at all.) None gives any hint of what any other kind of sun looks like, or how it is to be blazoned, except that Parker says in French a faceless sun is an ombre de soleil (shadow of a sun). So I don't see a case for forking. —Tamfang (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Boutell (rev. Brooke-Little 1978) says: "The SUN in heraldry is represented by a disc, sometimes with a human face, environed with rays which may be alternately straight and wavy, symbolic of both light and heat. The sun may be blazoned as 'in his splendour' or 'in his glory.' The number of rays is variable and need not be specified." —Tamfang (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this thread went stale. I have to agree with Tamfang and AnonMoos, though. Sun in splendour should be merged here, and repetitive images here should be trimmed, per WP:NOTGALLERY. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Gone and done it. —Tamfang (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)