Talk:Azure (heraldry)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Not moved - It also looks like further discussion may be warranted on this subject. For example, why the use of (tincture) as the Disambiguation phrase, when (heraldry) may have been more appropriate? (See Carnation (heraldry); Sable (heraldry), Ermine (heraldry), and Sanguine (heraldry) for some examples.) Please give this at least 30 days before suggesting a new move/merge, in order to foster further discussion. - jc37 09:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Main result?

Why is this, and not the page for the colour, the first result to appear when "Azure" is searched? Seems too specific compared to the page on the colour. Frankly, the thought had never crossed my mind that heraldric uses would be more important then the colour itself - or am I just in the dark? Seems to me that Azure (color) should be the main entry.

Proposed merge

I don't think it's useful to disambiguate Azure (color) from the use of Azure as a tincture. Tincture is merely a specific application of color, and could easily be discussed in all its intricacy in the same article. Please discuss here. (I am putting a link to this page at Talk:Azure (color) and Talk:Azure (disambiguation). --Dystopos 19:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• support per above. --Dystopos 19:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• oppose since azure (color) is a precisely defined shade of blue, whereas azure (heraldic tincture) encompasses a whole suite of shades of blue. It will also be very difficult to manage to keep these two issues separate within a single article link as the azure (heraldic tincture) page contines to grow with additional historical information about its use in heraldry. One item I am currently researching is what compounds were used in heraldic texts to tincture them blue. These shades and compounds will have nothing whatever to do with azure (color), as many of them will be a different shade and will appear in a different context. In short, the word "tincture" here has nothing to do with the artistic definition of "tincture". It is not a "specific application of color" in this case, but is an heraldic use of color. It is a definition of use, and not one of hue. The two issue are not related and should remain as separate articles. --EncycloPetey 02:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think it is erroneous to say that azure has any precise definition as a color. The concept of azure as a color is drawn from its use in heraldry and other crafts and arts. They are not to be separately defined at all. If different pigments are used to create a color field designated as "azure" then they are just as much "azure" as crushed lapis lazuli or the skies of france. At some level, "Azure" just means "blue" - and it means that to people who are limited by the pigments and dyes at hand. The Azure (color) article needs this content more than it needs somebody's arbitrary idea of what CMYK percentages are "really" azure. --Dystopos 04:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• The text you have written might make a fine addition to the Azure (color) article, then, but it doesn't apply to the concept of heraldic azure. The complication in your argument is that someone has given modern color theory azure a specific CMYK definition. And this still doesn't help with the dual (and very different) definitions of color and tincture that would be required. I think to be convinced that a merger is at all possible, I would have to see a proposed draft of the merged article that successfully handles these disparities. Look around at the various articles that the Wikiproject on color has been doing. They do not fit in with heraldic focus articles. Look also at the links to the page on azure in heraldry; they are almost all pages about flags and coats of arms, where only the heraldic definition is relevant. It would be needlessly confusing to add a CMYK and hex coding to the article, which would not apply to the various linking articles. --EncycloPetey 05:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, please do not delete comments I have made. Reinserting deleted text:

• oppose -- while in color theory azure (color) is a precisely defined shade of blue, azure (heraldic tincture) encompasses a whole suite of shades of blue. Explaining this difference is exteremly difficult and tedious, which is why I created a separate page for the heraldic color azure apart from the color theory color azure. It will also be very difficult to manage to keep these two issues separate within a single article link as the azure (heraldic tincture) page contines to grow with additional historical information about its use in heraldry. One item I am currently researching is what compounds were used in heraldic texts to tincture them blue. These shades and compounds will have nothing whatever to do with azure (color), as many of them will be a different shade and will appear in a different context. Since heealdic azure actually means darker shade of blue, we would have to merge all the color articles on dark shades of blue together if we wanted to preserve the heraldic meaning. This would be a Bad Idea.

To try to explain it simply, both the word tincture and the word color have different meanings in terms of color theory and of heraldry. In color theory, it is true that "tincture is merely a specific application of color". However, this statement is dead wrong for heraldry. In heraldry, a color is a subcategory of the tinctures; the other two subcategories are metals and furs. This definition would make no sense to a color theorist. To combine azure (color theory) and azure (heraldic color) into a single article thus would require re-defining both color and tincture two times in a single article, and the result would be more text about the differences in meaning of color and tincture between heraldry and color theory than actual text about either meaning of azure. The two sense of the word azure are operationally and theoretically distinct and should remain as separate articles. --EncycloPetey 02:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• If I deleted any comments, it was purely accidental -- perhaps an edit conflict. My apologies.

Some searching around emphasizes that there is no agreement on a precise "azure" color in any color system. Scotland has, after many centuries, settled on Pantone 300 for their azure flag while the UK uses a much darker Azure for the Union Flag. Visibone uses RGB 51,153,255 for their color reference products. An 8th century Persion would use crushed Lapis Lazuli. A 14th century poet would refer to the sky itself. And, in the exact same vein, a herald would use horizontal lines, lapis lazuli, ultramarine, or whatever blue was around. These are all descriptions of a color, which should be part of the main article. What would you think about putting a generalized article that includes a brief section on tincture at Azure and then a much more detailed treatment of heraldic uses at Azure (tincture). In my opinion the name Azure is, first and foremost, the name of a color and should be the primary article (unlike, say, gules which hardly ever is used to name a color outside of heraldic convention). --Dystopos 16:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that azure is "first and foremost" a color, since (as I pointed out) the majority of links on Wikipedia to the azure page are heraldic uses. I checked this before deciding whether the CMYK color or the heraldic color should be the primary page. This is why I chose to make the default azure page a page about the heraldic tincture instead of a page about the CMYK color, and instead of using "azure (heraldry)" for the heraldic color as I did with Or and sable (where indeed the primary definition used in English is not the heraldic tincture). Your arguments about what you found for azure support my position, in that azure is not a specific color, but is used in flags (a heraldic use). You also have not shown that azure is more frequently used (in any particular context) to mean a specific color than it is a heraldic tincture, and the link ratio I've mentioned argues against your position. As it is, only the two of us seem to have any opinion, so I think further debate is irrelevant until that situation changes. --EncycloPetey 09:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - this article is dealing with heraldry issues, not the colour blue!
• oppose - per above. --Roland 17:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

I think that this article (on the tincture azure), should be moved to azure (tincture), and that the disambiguation page currently at azure (disambiguation) should be moved to azure. If no one objects, I'll move it, else I'll send it through the requested moves process (which is currently backlogged). ENeville 03:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I object. Having articles titled Azure (tincture) and Azure (color) would lead to confusion about the distinction between the pages. Especially since azure in heraldry belongs to the heraldic class of tinctures known as "colors" (as opposed to "metals"). --EncycloPetey 14:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. It seems that you argue above (in the merge discussion) for maintaining separate pages for the color (generally) and the tincture, so the two pages (and potential confustion) already exist. I'm simply proposing that the disambiguation page be at azure. Is there another modified name you suggest for the article on the tincture, or are you insisting that that article be at azure? (Or do you suggest something else?) ENeville 18:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that it should stay as it is. Your proposal would make the situation more confusing than it already is. --EncycloPetey 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that it probably would be best to go through a more formalized process at this point. ENeville 15:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

I have requested moving azure (color) to azure, which would require moving this article to azure (tincture) (or a similarly modified namespace). See discussion at Talk:Azure. ENeville 15:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move: to "Azure (heraldry)"

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Moved - I speedily moved based on the below discussion. If any concerns, please feel free to immediately start a new discussion. For example, any particular reason to not consider Azure (color) as the primary topic? - jc37 00:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

---

• Azure → Azure (heraldry)
• Azure (disambiguation) → Azure

– There are enough other uses of this word, particularly the color, that it seems odd to assume that the tincture is what is meant. Powers ^T 22:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. As the present DAB page shows, the word azure has many meanings. It is crucial in 19th-century European poetry, for example ([1], [2]). Nothing is gained by invoking a "primary topic" here; if that were attempted systematically, it is doubtful that the present article would qualify. Noetica^Tea? 00:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Heraldry is most certainly NOT the primarily topic pbp 00:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Note: Please be sure that the 400+ links to the heraldic article that were broken by the move are repaired. The large number of links suggests that heraldry WAS the primary topic. A significant fraction of the Azure (color) links are actually redirects from names of various other shades of blue that have been dumped into that article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I would counter that the large number of links is not evidence that heraldry was the primary topic, but rather evidence that we have a lot of heraldry articles and each one links to the article for purposes of defining the word. Powers ^T 15:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
    • And the reason that we have so many more articles using this sense of "azure" than we do other senses of "azure"? I contend it's evidence of the wider use and application of the heraldic sense, that continues even today in coats of arms, flags, and insignia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Certainly a reasonable supposition, but it's only a supposition and not definitively argued by volume of links. Indeed, if the heraldic use was so overwhelmingly common as to be considered the primary topic, it would be well enough known that it wouldn't need to be linked for definitional purposes, don't you think? Powers ^T 21:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
        • That's a suprious argument. Articles are linked for relevance, not simply for definitional purposes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
          • In most cases, yes, but I think you'll find if you look at the articles that link to Azure (heraldry), you'll find that to be precisely what's happening. Take, for example, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother#Arms. Most of the links within that section are used only to define heraldry-related jargon: impalement (heraldry), quartering (heraldry), argent, rampant, Azure (heraldry), Gules, tressure, Ermine (heraldry), Pale (heraldry), fess, and Or (heraldry). Those words are not linked because the concepts are relevant to the Queen Mother, but because people reading the article are likely to be unfamiliar with the jargon and need definitions. As a counterexample, take Flag of the United States, wherein extensive discussion of the colors is present but not a single link to red, white, or blue. Why? Because we assume the average reader knows what those words mean, and the concepts themselves are not closely related to the flag. Powers ^T 14:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
            • So, it's your contention that people do know what "azure" means in the color sense, but don't know the heraldic sense? And that's why there are so many more links to the heraldic article? Rather, I interpret that as "azure" in the heraldic sense turning up as relevant far more often. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
              • I make no contention regarding how many people know the word "azure" as a color. What I am saying is that the plethora of links to Azure (heraldry) fall into the third category of desirable links found at WP:UNDERLINK ("articles explaining technical terms, jargon or slang expressions") rather than the first category ("relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully"). I demonstrate that contention by referring to the first category of undesirable links at WP:OVERLINK ("Avoid linking plain English words.") Powers ^T 13:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)