Talk:John Moore, Baron Moore of Lower Marsh

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arms

This section seems to me to be a triviality which only distracts. The man has been dead for 2 years and his baronial arms are defunct. Does anybody object if I remove the section?.Izzy (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody responded to this, so I have removed the section titled Arms. I realise that some fellow contributors are fascinated by baronial arms and may take a different view to mine on this. While I am on, I could not find a single "bare URL reference" in the article. So I have removed the relevant banner. Sorry if I am missing something obvious, BrownHairedGirl. Izzy (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Izzy: it was the link to http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/lp1958%20m.htm, which was at the bottom of the section you removed.[1] Later in my tagging run, I switched to using the inline tag which would have made this easier to identify.

As the coat of arms, it seems to me to a bit of a tossup. Moore was best known as minister, not as a peer, so the coat of arms seems incidental to me. But then I am a politics wonkette, and that may just be my personal perspective. There are other editors and readers who are more into peerages and heraldry, and I cannot imagine them being thrilled by the removal. So on balance, I would marginally prefer that the arms section was kept. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you say, BrownHairedGirl. If any contributor feels strongly on the matter then they are welcome to restore the section on Arms. Izzy (talk) 06:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Izzy: I have left pointers to this discussion at two related wikiprojects: [2], [3].

I hope that will bring in some other views. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess WP:WEIGHT applies. Do reliable sources talk about his coat of arms? Would you expect to see his coat of arms in a paper encyclopaedia entry about him? The answer to both of those seems to me to be no, ergo let's not include. Bondegezou (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like the inclusion of arms and style, but I'm that kind of person. If it is a style issue, and it did take up quite a lot of room, maybe the way the arms are presented in Justin Welby could be replicated? Use the smaller box and add it to the infobox as well? Or maybe just the info box since it is a short article and the extra section would take up a lot of space.

I appreciate what @Bondegezou says though, maybe just from my perspective of being interested in heraldry and style it makes it seem more important to include. Not entirely sure on how good that original source in the first place js so maybe it's best to remove it base on that alone? I think if there was another source to provide the blazon then I'd support the arms being put back in someway. --Gharbhain (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]