Welcome!

Hello, Snowsuit Wearer, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type ((helpme)) on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snowsuit Wearer, I undid your last version of the coat of arms of Zaanstad as I can't remember that coats of arms are placed in front of a category. Dqfn13 (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but it is a standard which I have seen in many articles about coats of arms. I gather they are seen as the main symbol of whatever entity they stand for. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 17:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should check all other coats of arms then... because your edits where the first of this kind I've seen. I'm not going to revert again, enwiki has dissapointed me too many times. Dqfn13 (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is a discussion about some coats of arms categories you have created here. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - I can do that. I'd assumed it would be under the ice hockey project - I think I found a few others that had been so tagged when I was looking. I'll try to get to it tonight. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Think I've caught 'em all. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carpenters Arms is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carpenters Arms until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

The discussion under this headline is moved to Talk:Akzhaiyk

I remember long ago when I first got used to Wikipedia. Back then, U.S.-centrism was one of the things many Wikipedians disliked a lot.

However, a recent post I made at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment that you moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language is a good recent example of this. I initially posted it at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment because I saw it as having to do with music terminology. However, you moved it (I didn't really think of the idea that it should be moved at first glance.)

But what does this have to do with U.S.-centrism?? To an American point of view (the native language of the United States is English, not Italian) the suffixes -issimo and -etto and the term mezzo are best known as parts of music terminology, so it seemed so natural to put the question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. But to a European point of view (one European country has Italian as its native language) these terms are part of the Italian language, and music has no special significance to these terms (the same way no subject has special significance to the -s suffix for forming plurals in English) from an Italian point of view.

Question: do you move posts from one reference desk to another frequently?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't move posts from one reference desk to another very often, but in this case I saw it as relevant. The question is more of a language question than a music question. Of course, it has to do with music terminology, but all terminology is also language questions. The Entertainment section in the Reference desk I mostly see as a desk for questions about musicians and general popular culture, while your question had to do more with classical music terminology, which, as you so rightly say, is based on Italian. My intent was in no way to make any "US-centred" move. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 14:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Promotion and relegation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bandy World Championship. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 2016 Women's Bandy World Championship requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Compassionate727 (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snowsuit Wearer. Please stop moving the Myanma election articles. The main article is now at Myanmar, so the election articles have to use the appropriate demonym (Myanma). See WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums for more. Cheers, Number 57 12:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me, but the country's name is Burma. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 19:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you move the pages again, you will be blocked. Stop now. Thanks, Number 57 21:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks"? It's rather rude to use sarcasm like that. You should explain your view instead, since it goes against the Wikipedia principle of neutrality. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a view this time round – I didn't participate in the RM. I am just tired of you moving the articles to incorrect titles. Number 57 21:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be. I just did it perhaps twice for two articles. That's not much, is it? Also, politeness is a virtue. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bandy in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federation Cup. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Brian heim composer. Snowsuit Wearer, thanks for creating Andrey Kabanov (bandy player)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. A link to a source that indicates Andrey's success in the 2015 competition would be helpful, as well as any news source that includes biographical information.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Brian heim composer (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Belarus national bandy team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Baranov. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SW, please could you leave edit summaries for your changes? for example, it isn't clear what the reason is for the large trim on City of London? Many thanks Whizz40 (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It's moved to its own page, Coat of arms of the City of London. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User: Snowsuit Wearer: Thank you for your effort to improve the article on Marshal Mannerheim. As it happens, however, the subject of what given names he was called by has been a much disputed subject on his talk page even just the last several years I have been involved in it--both by Finnish editors and non-Finns alike. Although the Internet sources you mention ARE relevant, there are much more dispositive, authoritative sources to consider. The issue has been kicked around plenty. Please read and understand my remarks under your heading on the Mannerheim talk page.

AND obtain editing community consensus prior to further attempts to amend the name of Mannerheim's article. WP:Bold permits an editor to make controversial changes, but if reverted back to the stable version, such editor needs to obtain consensus from the editing community rather than continuing to force such a change. Paavo273 (talk) 04:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gustaf Mannerheim has to be considered the "stable" version, not the "Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim" you are advocating. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 09:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:: Hi again, Snowsuit Wearer: Are you aware, BTW, that the article title for the first President Bush is George H. W. Bush?

AFAICT, the authority of the two WP rules you cite (manual of style and deciding on an article title) is squarely against your position.

I will spell this out in detail on the Mannerheim talk page.

You inject/introduce to the discussion the idea of multiple first names, a concept not supported by either rule. The manual of style specifically refers to A (meaning ONE) first name and middle name(s). Paavo273 (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's little need for interpretation of these rules; they are pretty clear on their faces. AFAICT you are not interpreting the rules but instead just making up your OWN rules and claiming they are the rule--while ignoring that three different editors have pointed out to you on the article talk page with specificity what the rules actually say on point. Your made-up rules: 1. your own INVENTION of the idea of multiple first names (instead of a single first name and middle name(s), 2. calling for the name the person used during his life (which is not at issue, especially for a non-BLP, and also BTW itself disputed) rather than what the historical literature uses--as the rule calls for, and 3. rejecting the similarity of names for disambiguation laid out in the rule.

QUERY: Can you quote and apply any actual text in either of these rules to support your position? If so, please do so forthwith on the Mannerheim talk page. If not, please cease and desist. Quit wasting other editors’ time.

If you have used this obfuscating m.o. to move or change other article titles or make other edits in general, that also should be looked into, any affected articles should be rolled back, and you should be barred from this kind of conduct in your future editing. Based on your edits, you’re obviously a highly skilled technical editor who knows exactly what you’re doing. Paavo273 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Read the rule. It seems you haven't done this. I could quote the rule in extentio, but I don't think this will help you read it. You cannot compare the case of two Presidents Bush with the case of Marshal Mannerheim and his much less well-known grandfather. The latter may have disambiguating words added to his article heading, the former should not as he is so much more famous. Therefore, all his firstnames should not be part of the article heading. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the first four short sentences, your latest response appears to be an extension/amplification of your made up rule number 3, highlighted in red (under your move proposal) on M's talk page. If there is any basis in a WP rule or guideline for this latest offering, please advise. For sure, or at least AFAICT, nothing of this sort appears in paragraph 2 or elsewhere of the naming rule. Paavo273 (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snowsuit Wearer,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Oulunkylän tekojäärata for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheInformativePanda (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and a Happy Christmas. Thanks for your recent contributions, improving London's coverage. I would like to invite you to: Category talk:London borough templates.- Adam37 Talk 15:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 Bandy World Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kevin Brown. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until your edit here (which was not proposed and undiscussed, as far as I can see), there was absolutely nothing in the WP:SORTKEY guidelines which would suggest that an article about a coat of arms should be considered a "key article" that would receive sorting in this fashion. Despite what you have suggested, this is not standard sorting for articles about coats of arms. I find your attempt to change the guideline by changing the glossary definition of "key article" to be a little bit dodgy, to say the least. I suggest you attempt to gain a consensus for your approach. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is and has always been. My adding of it to the glossary was only stating an existing fact. Stop making things up just because you personally is against it. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 00:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no—it's not. You're the only one who is pursuing this line of thinking. They are not treated as key articles on any of the coats of arms pages except the ones that you have edited! If you have proof to the contrary, please share it at Wikipedia talk:Glossary, but don't just suggest without evidence that it doesn't need discussion. Obviously there is some resistance to your position. "Stop making things up just because you personally is against it." Pot, kettle, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – I've tried working with you on this issue to encourage you to demonstrate or seek a consensus to back up your position, but you just keep reverting and claiming you already have the consensus or accusing me of disruptive editing. So my next interaction on the issue will be via a WP:RFC on the issue. We will see what other editors think based on the current practice and guidelines. Please don't change the guidelines in question while this is ongoing; ie, from here on out. I'll post a notice here of where the discussion will be posted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What?! You say you have tried working with me on this? No you have not. Definitely not. You have just gone on pushing your opinion, without even considering the nature of heraldry. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 23:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should not change the current guideline before any discussion is over. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 23:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the guideline said nothing about heraldic coats of arms until you edited it to say so. In good faith, I just asked you not to edit the guideline pending an RFC on the issue, and you go ahead and edit it? How is this collaborative? We can do this the easy way, or the hard way. If you prefer WP:ANI, I'm willing to go there, because you're certainly acting in a way that will easily get you blocked. You choose. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you look: you happened to come across some category sorting you did not like and changed them. I changed them back. Instead of discussing, you just kept changing them back for some time and then when finally starting to talk about it..., instead of accepting that they followed an already existing unwritten rule, you just keep reverting, even if you still seem to understand that the issue is not settled. But YOU is the one who wants the change. So you are the one who should seek a consensus for your change, not me. What's so hard to understand? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 23:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see I've upset you: let my try to explain what I'm saying. You are the one who changed the guideline in the first place. And you did this without a consensus or discussion happening anywhere. You haven't really pointed to any evidence of it even being a consensus by default, since it only has been implemented by you in a tiny percentage of obscure articles about coats of arms – about 1% or less of total articles about coats of arms. If you revert the guideline again while I am in the process of establishing the RFC status quo ante for comment, you'll probably be blocked. Just sayin'. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this change in some articles in the past, yes, but only because I have seen the same in many other articles and I found it to be a sane idea. YOU are the one who want a change. Why is this so hard for you to understand? This has for instance been on from the start for the London Borough Arms articles created some years ago by User:Arms Jones. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 00:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't like being threatened of blocking from you, because of your little personal vendetta on this issue. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 00:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you haven't shown any evidence that this is common practice anywhere but where you and your other account have edited, so it's difficult to take your claim seriously, especially when it goes against pre-existing guidelines that you attempted to change retroactively to suit what you were doing. That's why it's difficult to give your position credence. It's not difficult to understand, it's just not convincing – there is a difference.

I have no vendetta and it wasn't a threat, and I'm sorry if you felt threatened by it because that wasn't the intent. It was meant to be helpful and to help you avoid being blocked, because if you revert again you would be over the WP:3RR bright line and an editor would not hesitate to block you for doing that, regardless of the merits of the dispute on either side. I had only just realised that there had been that many reverts in the past 24 hours, so I thought you may have overlooked it too, since it's easy to do and users overlook it all the time.

Overall, I've tried to interact with you on this issue and to see where you're coming from, but you seem pretty belligerent when you're asked for standard sorts of things: proof of a consensus for your position, proof of a discussion or at least an attempt to reach consensus whereby it could justify editing a longstanding guideline/glossary term, and so forth. So I'm done discussing this issue here, but my comments will continue on the glossary talk page. I've asked for other users to comment there. Hopefully others will participate and we can see where the consensus lies for going forward. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being belligerent? No, you are. I do not understand why this issue is so important to you. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 12:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What to you mean by saying "your other account"? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 12:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I was I was referring to is found here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Snowsuit_Wearer/Archive. I knew you were using at least one other account, I just didn't know there were so many! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Snowsuit Wearer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snowsuit Wearer. Thank you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Snowsuit Wearer. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, SK Drafn, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: ((proposed deletion/dated...))
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rules and Referee Committee has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cannot find any independent sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin Brown (bandy) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Brown (bandy) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:German family coats of arms requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Coats of arms with empty fields indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish family coats of arms has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scottish family coats of arms has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Family coats of arms has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]