List of heraldic charges: However, the main issue with this article is that it has a literally limitless scope.  In heraldry, any noun can be a charge.  "List of heraldic charges" is as vague and limitless as "List of subjects that have been drawn".  There are thousands of objects that have been used as charges, and it is impossible to have a good list of them.  If we were to have an article it would need to be much more specific, like "List of charges used by the Canadian Heraldic Authority", but that would also fail LISTN.  Di (they-them) ( talk ) 19:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and History .  Di (they-them) ( talk ) 19:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I'm utterly baffled what the point of this is. I don't need a Wikipedia article to tell me you can put a rhinoceros, a salmon, a palm tree, a volcano, and a rake on a coat of arms.  It'd be a cool design, but this isn't necessary.  The original version of this was even worse!  Reywas92 Talk 00:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete – This has been on my watchlist for years, and every time I have spelunked through it looking for a kernel worth building around I have come up empty.  — jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 13:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete charges that have unusual terminology or meaningful established symbolism can be covered at Charge (heraldry) .  It’s utterly ridiculous to “list” every charge because literally anything can be a change.  For example, a snake vert, gorged by tire sable, holding a knife au natural is a perfectly legitimate charge, but we don’t need to list it.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 21:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to Charge (heraldry) .  That said.  I think it should not be deleted.  -- evrik ( talk ) 18:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Charge (heraldry) is already a massive article, to the point of becoming unreasonable.  I cannot think of any way to add more stuff there that wouldn't be a mess.  However, it does not seem reasonable to me that we could include every charge ever used in an article and have it clock in under a gigabyte.  I believe the crest of Strong Badia would be "Fess gules and tenne, a fess argent, a serpent vert glissant nowed gored of a tire natural bearing a knife natural" (although Strong Badia is a made-up nation even in the canon of its originating media)... see also Wangen-Brüttisellen , whose coat of arms is weed lmao.  That said, it seems incredibly easy to come up with inclusion criteria that bring it down to something manageable.  For example, Coat of arms of Finland has its own article, whereas Coat of arms of Wangen-Brüttisellen or Coat of arms of Strong Badia do not.  Maybe there are issues here, but they do not seem insurmountable.  jp × g 17:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for correcting me Dronebogus ( talk ) 01:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per JPxG, caring for a garden is better than digging it up.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 11:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Are you guys confusing this with “list of coats of arms” or do you really think it’s plausible to have a list of things you can put on a heraldic shield that isn’t wildly indiscriminate?  I’m a little lost by these keep votes.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 11:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per JPxG.  I understand the charge (pun intended) that this could be seen as indiscriminate, but there is enough useful information in this list to make it viable (it's more than just a "List of anything that could be an heraldic charge"), and it is clearly too large to be merged into Charge (heraldry) .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 12:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus yet.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - While yes, there are a lot of different examples, that shouldn't really be a knock against the article.  I would like to see some of the examples listed that are not referenced have references added, but that shouldn't be much of an issue.  KatoKungLee ( talk ) 17:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  I'd like to see some policy-based arguments on either side as there is no consensus and a lot of "I like it"/"I don't like it" opinions offered.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep WP:NLIST says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources...; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." .   Bolded sections seem to refute the existing arguments for deletion, and the quote as a whole suggests this is an acceptable stand-alone list.  — siro χ o 00:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak delete per, uh, I'm gonna say WP:TNT and WP:IAR .  Unusual case of an article that seems fine as a matter of policy but unsalvageable as a matter of practice.  That is, I believe Siroxo's analysis of NLIST is entirely correct, and IMO the nom's insistence that there be a single source that covers all heraldic charges is not a correct statement of the rule.  The subject matter of this list seems to be NLIST-compliant, and I don't think it's truly indiscriminate.  But even so, looking over the actual list I just don't see anything to work with.  The list provides no information for the vast majority of its entries beyond "this is a heraldic charge that may occur somewhere".  A list that did provide such information (such as e.g. cross-references to notable coats of arms that include each charge) would be an entirely new list, with new inclusion criteria.  To the extent having such a list would be desirable, this list is probably doing more harm than good by being in the way.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Very roughly it seems like half of the items are sourced externally or explained in the list via an image or use, so WP:TNT might lose some value.  I think it might be reasonable to remove everything that has no source or explanation.  I'd be willing to do that pruning if there's support for it.  — siro χ o 02:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, here is a proposal: we knock it down from its current state to two entries, the lion and the eagle, and then see what it expands into from there.  jp × g 18:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as @ Reywas92 stated, a list isn't needed for this topic since it can be anything.  Important information regarding charges are already in Charge (heraldry) and doesn't necessarily require expansion, but a few bits can be added if needed.  Karnataka ( talk ) 21:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete