Roll of arms 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
I do not believe the above demerger should have taken place and that it should now be reverted to re-consolidate the article Roll of arms. The article Roll of arms was only a very short article and there was no need for a demerger. It has been shorn of its relevant detail and the new article is turning into a parallel article, developing a longer and longer intro, whilst the original article is developing its own list of rolls. A mess. Comments please. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC))[reply]
I viewed both articles, and consider the separation of the topic and list to be beneficial. To expand the article Roll of arms further, I expect it will become less British Isles centered probably through cross connection with similarly titled articles in other languages. There seems to be a continuity threads that have not been developed regarding military use, class-defining function, the natural fade in relevance in most republics, etc. In sum the article Roll of arms is start class because it is so sparse. I have great respect for Lobsterthermidor as I encounter his excellent work and improvements from time to time; remerging may make less work by allowing edits to be within one article rather than between articles. Yet removing the bulky List of rolls of arms may allow natural growth in the article Roll of arms by keeping External links and other elements. So my suggestion is to "wait and see" for a few years, while moving content from List of roll of arms to Roll of arms when appropriate68.32.154.213 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. I fear that what will happen is that we will have parallel expansion in both, with the "list" article's intro growing, and the original article's list growing. This will therefore require solving by a merger later down the line. The section "Known historical examples", is surely a list, why wasn't this split-off into the new "list article"? It's a bit of a mess. Your point re "British Isles centered" is a good one and suggests to me that it is now time to create a new article on English rolls so that the topic can be developed more freely. This might encourage those with a primary interest in non-English rolls to develop those areas too. On my to do list.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
I had not seen this, and I guess I am open to either merging or "de-merging", the main problem was that the material was in poor shape, not whether it was kept on one or on two pages.
Since there is very little material here, it is easier to develop it on a single page, but once we get a substantial expansion of the "list" portion, I suppose it would make sense to export it again. At present, if the "list" were to be split off, there would be no "article" left to speak of.
If the material is developed by high quality additions, there will come a natural point where WP:SS becomes convenient. --dab(𒁳) 10:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also new to this, but the current combined form seems clearly correct. If either or both portions get vastly larger the situation might change. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
