Template talk:Infobox British Royalty

Names
	Bessie Wallis Warfield

Wallis
Wallis
Duchess of Windsor
	Wallis Simpson in 1970
Burial	Frogmore, Windsor
Spouse	Earl Winfield Spencer, Jr.; (m. 1916, div. 1927); Ernest Aldrich Simpson; (m. 1928, div. 1937); Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor; (m. 1937);
Names
Names
	Bessie Wallis Warfield
House	House of Windsor
Father	Teackle Wallis Warfield
Mother	Alice M. Montague
Occupation	Socialite

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 August 10. The result of the discussion was "to keep".

This template was considered for deletion on 2006 August 21. The result of the discussion was "to keep".

Surely that's enough said?

Colour

The colour is to bright imo; can you cool it down? Brian | (Talk) 07:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House

Is House in this case meant to mean the house one married into or the house of one's birth? Frankly, the House of one's birth would be much more useful, in my opinion, since the house of the spouse or of the British royal family will be found on the respective sovereign's page. Charles 16:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Okay, we'll go with house of birth then... -- D B D 20:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous

This infobox, besides being overly garish and hard to read, is superfluous to requirements as all data can be presented using the more than adequate Template:Infobox Monarch. Also, as there is a lot of cross-over between different houses in Europe, the question is raised as to which one to use. It is therefore better to use just one box for all members of all families. --Bob 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the nomination for deletion, it was agreed that the BRoy infobox would be useful - the style and so forth will be discussed in the WikiProject - the template Monarch is not adequate - most of the people you have reverted are, in fact, not Monarchs! For goodness sake, please pay attention to past discussions *before* you rush in and undo someone's hard work. -- D B D 09:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the template states "Monarch" in its title, ir does not mean that it can't be used for other purposes. This template is absolutely the ugliest one I have seen on Wikipedia and is totally, 100% redundant to the Monarch template. Indeed, there is nothing that this template can bring than the other doesn't do 100% better. This one is hard to read, (purple background with black lettering!) and cannot be enforced due to the crossbreeding that has occurred between the Russian, Danish, French, etc etc royal families. --Bob 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from Prince William of Wales

While I agree that this infobox lacks beauty and grace, I came here to complain about wrong information currently used in the infobox on the Prince William page. Mainly, the wrong link is used for William's father (twice and once for his mother). Also, the Prince of Wales does not precede William, he is his father. Harry is not William's heir (heir to what?), but his brother. Harry will only be his brother's heir if William is king and has no children. William is not even heir to any of his father's titles. -Acjelen 22:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure who is responsible, but the infobox looks much better at this article and the incorrect information/links have been removed. -Acjelen 23:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was your name again?

I don't think the infobox needs to give the name of the person three times, especially since its probably in the article title as well. I think the most common name (good luck with that) should in the first bar, the full style with the "HRH" (or otherwise) in the second bar and any titles minus the name further down in the infobox. The "Princess Michael" sort will be tricky, though. -Acjelen 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first field is a short-form of their name, the second is their primary title, and the later list is a full list of all styles-titles... I wouldn't call that excessive (but then again that's obvious - else I wouldn't've designed it like that...) -- D B D 19:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the problem is with application. For some royalty, the three fields will have basically the same information. -Acjelen 20:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shorthand titles

Is the intention of this field to give all current titles or only the chief titles over time? -Acjelen 14:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latter -- D B D 14:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should add that to the descriptions in the infobox, which are otherwise generally helpful. You might want to add some examples of untitled royals so that editors understand your intentions. -Acjelen 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just check the Duchess of Cornwall's page. Her maiden name and first married name, with honorariums, are given in the Titles field (but not Princess of Wales). Does this also fall into the purpose of this field? If so, one could add Cadet William Wales and Cornet Harry Wales (or Lt. Harry Wales) to the appropriate pages. -Acjelen 15:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Camilla has never been styled Wales; the Wales's each have a title which outranks their military ranks // D B D 15:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That didn't answer my question. "Miss Camilla Shand" is not a title, or a place-holder for a title like on Prince William's page. Why is it there and what does it mean for the infobox as a whole? -Acjelen 15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am against the use of the "titles" information for British monarchs. It makes the templates too big. There are no dates or context to the information. The titles are usually given in a separate section in the article anyway (with dates). And the list in the infobox isn't usually complete. Queen Elizabeth has a million titles (like Lord of Mann) that aren't in the infobox. --JW1805 (Talk) 22:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do read - the idea of the titles box is not to list all titles, it is to list what she was known as over time. – D B D 22:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse

Well, now we've gone too far. The deceased are not married to anyone and are no one's spouse. One might as well claim Bill Clinton is the president of the United States as Diana is the spouse of the Prince of Wales. -Acjelen 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton is in fact President, and will remain so until the day he dies. Eixo 23:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usage

The usage of this infobox on the pages of monarchs is confusing. The Alfred the Great page has this template but Edward the Elder has Template:Infobox Monarch. Elizabeth I and Charles I have this template but James I has Template:Infobox Monarch. Surly every British Monarch should have this template or none of them should. I could understand if Anne (the first monarch of Britain has a whole) and all her successors used this template and all who came before her used Infobox Monarch but they don't, it just seems completely random. Philip Stevens 14:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be confusing. It's quite simple - Infobox British Royalty. If they're British and royal, then they should have it. I just haven't changed them all yet. And a few times they get reverted... *grumble grumble* – D B D 19:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this template conforms to the styles employed in other infoboxes, it is almost identical to Template:Infobox Monarch. What is the purpose of having two infoboxes that provide and display the information in almost exactly the same way?? --Bob 16:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't be bothered to repeat myself. Look over this talk page, and over the TfD discussion linked at the top. – D B D 20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of saw your point when the boxes were so different, but now that it is not the case, the two could easily be integrated thereby reducing template cruft. --Bob 22:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hide"

I'm trying to remove the collapseabilty of this infobox, but I can't work out how to do it. I really don't think that someone's infobox should be hidden when you first go to the page like this one is. It removes the photo and important details and I fail to see why it should be hidden at all. --Berks105 12:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've hit upon it. It shouldn't be hidden - I wanted it collapseable, but not hidden at first. I'm trying to find someone who can correct my blunder... – D B D 13:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the collapsibility from the template as it is defeating the objective of the infobox. From what I understand of these things, the problem was that the NavFrame class was used, which autocollapses if there are three or more of these tables on the page. To get the functionality that you want, you need to add collapsible to the class so it becomes class="infobox collapsible", but this causes problems with the alignment of the {{{name}}} parameter and it looks odd. For more info, see Wikipedia:NavFrame. I personally don't think that this needs to be added because the infobox shows information directly related to the article and there isn't really a reason to want to hide it, whereas with a navbox the info is 'you might want to also see...' and isn't directly related. Also, can I suggest that you test what you want to do in a sandbox as every edit to a template means a change has to be made in every page using that template, and when several changes are made, that's a lot of changes. mattbr³⁰ 16:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Birth_date_and_age

Any objections if this template were to be added to the various infoboxes for Royalty? Using Queen Elizabeth as an example, the effect of this would be to change the birthdate from looking like this:

April 21, 1926

to this:

April 21, 1926 (age 98)

And it's being increasing applied to the various infoboxes across Wikipedia. Tabercil 16:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it should. It is widely accepted and used in infoboxes for politicians (i.e. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown), sports figures (i.e. David Beckham, Ben Alnwick)), and entertainers (i.e. Parminder Nagra, Hugh Grant)) --rogerd 22:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so shall I add that to the usage notes? D B D 22:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having said this, now I find a small problem. For those users that are signed in and have stated a preference in special:preferences, they will see the date formatted according what is set, but those who are not signed in or haven't stated a preference will see the date formatted according to North American customs "February 20, 1951 (age 56)". Of course people in the UK or other commonwealth countries (except Canada) would expect to see it formatted "20 February 1951 (age 56)". I think we need either have an alternate template for articles about subjects from countries other that the US or Canada or perhaps we can figure out a way to state the default formatting as an optional 4th parameter. So, let's hold off until this issue is resolved. See Template talk:Birth date and age#British or U.S. order. --rogerd 04:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a {{Birth date and age}} template has been added to address this concern, but I hope that eventually we can get to a single template that meets everyone's needs with an optional 4th parameter that allows the user to specify a default date formatting. Someone has already added it to Prince William of Wales and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh --rogerd 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects, I think that we should start adding {{Birth date and age}} to members of the Royal Family besides the two members that already have it. --rogerd 20:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and death details

Can someone please move the birth and death details (dates and places) further up the infobox, probably right up to just below the image bit. Such key data shouldn't be hidden away down at the bottom of the infobox. Carcharoth 00:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates of resting places

Please will someone added a coordinates parameter for "place of burial", using the "resting place coordinates" of {{Infobox biography}} as a model? Thank you. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why "Issue"?

Why not simply "children"? I'm not an expert and am entirely willing to accept that the two terms might not mean precisely the same thing, though issue gives no hint of that and simply calls it an "old term for offspring". If they are the same thing, then "issue" looks, frankly, a little bit pointlessly snobbish. 86.136.255.33 02:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with the Issue thing. Its not the use of the word though. It is the alignment of the childeren's name in the list with the style of tabular column and row, or even marginal paragraph labels. Whatever it is, it is out of alignment (see Canute the Great)> If this is meant to be like this it is stupid. I am 99% sure it isnt though. Can someone fix it? WikieWikieWikie (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I presume you meant that the list of issue is takes up one column as wide as the other two. This is because the links to issue become quite long (like if we have "Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" there), so they're given as much space as possible. I'm sorry if you think it looks unpleasing, but it's for a practical reason. D B D 08:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... maybe not completely stupid. You mean to tell me though this is actually meant purely to contain the long names of the royals? Even if this might seem like sense to some, with it being a royalty info box, dont you think it is a bit disfunctional? Surely royal names can be brought down to size? We can simplify things very easily in the links? Remember there is always the possibility of there being a ridiculously long title. Like the example I state above. If Canute was listed in Sweyn Forkbeard's with his full title it would be two line's worth even with the extra width. Shouldnt we just get used to the simplification of royal names, if needs be, at least in this section? After all the childeren of royal usually only acquire their full titles later in life. This is then maybe an over-the-top way to refence someone's issue.

Maybe we can open a debate and people can bring to the table their reason's, and examples, for the pros and cons of this arrangement. If there already is one please direct me to it, and if I can add to it Ill see if I can reopen it. Thanks. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting is of no importance to me; it seems clear enough. However, "issue" is archaic jargon and a disservice to the readership. I changed it to "Offspring". Uses of the template with issue=... still work. 76.254.79.159 (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a change which should be dicussed, and the onus is on you. Summon interested parties (such as editors of this template from the past and members of WP:BROY). I will revert to the established usage in the mean time. D B D 22:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe that this change requires discussion, and what do you mean to suggest that there is an onus? The following are facts: (1) the use of "issue" in this sense is archaic, (2) the typical Wikipedia reader will not know that it's a synonym for offspring, (3) it has already been complained about at the beginning of this section, (4) the use of "children" as suggested by 86.136.255.33 above connotes youth, which "offspring" does not. Do you believe that any of those are not facts? If so, please say why. I am reverting back. 76.254.79.159 (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like "Offspring". It sounds too bestial. DrKay (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage order

The "reverse chronological order" suggested by the makers of the template make no sense; the appropriate order of presentation is chronological. These are articles dealing with history, not IMDB pages about an actors latest film. - Nunh-huh 02:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reverse chronological order makes sense due to the consideration that, more often than not, a person's most recent spouse either was their spouse at death, or still is – either way, it is probable that the couple are still married, so it makes sense for that spouse to be listed first D B D 03:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there's no apparent reason why the last spouse would be more important than any other. Chronological order is the appropriate one here; if someone wants to know the last spouse, they look at the last one on the list. If they want to know the first spouse, they look at the first. Reverse chronological order is counterintuitive and misleading. - Nunh-huh 03:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that this absurdity of presentation isn't a long-standing thing; for example, the reversal of the appropriate order of the wives of Henry VIII occurred only on 2 November. It's time to correct this before more work is created. - Nunh-huh 03:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Nunh-huh on this one. Facts should be presented as they happended in life, it would be like starting an article with someone's death and ending with their birth. I also see no problem in putting "(1937-1972)" for Wallis & Edward, as they did cease to be married in that, you can't be married in death. --UpDown 08:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, chronological order it is – but can we please leave marriages ending in death as open – if only because it can be confused for the termination of a marriage... D B D 14:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this listing of beginning and ending dates of marriages is another silly convention we seem to have taken from the IMDB. Give dates of marriages, and dates of divorce, appropriately marked as such. (Though, of course, the death of a spouse ends a marriage. That's why the marital status of a widow isn't "married".) - Nunh-huh 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we can't just say married year and nothing else.--UpDown 18:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could just leave dates off – they're in the body anyway... D B D 19:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with m. 1972, div. 1983. - Nunh-huh 00:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Length is what is wrong – it's preferred that each datum takes one line and one only... D B D 01:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're here to inform. Looking pretty is ancillary. So take an additional line to both inform and look pretty. : eg:

- Nunh-huh 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are indeed here to inform, but looking presentable is important. I think the above is a bit OTT. Perhaps we could miss out the dates. Is there a general Wiki policy regarding this?--UpDown 10:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't seen any such policy. - Nunh-huh 00:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Detail" link

The link has been criticised because it doesn't link to the right place. For example at the Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom FAC, Mike Christie pointed out that the link should go to the section "Titles and styles". Is there any way around this? I am reluctant to divide the section "Titles and styles" into "Titles" and "Styles", because there would be little point. Many thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 11:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep

This template survived two tfds on the basis that it had a purpose. By changing the use in this way, it becomes redundant to {{infobox monarch}}. What's "British" about Alfred the Great? I suggest you return to the original clearly-defined and more or less logical scope, the alternative would be another tfd. As regards the WikiProject, I would think that the change in scope there is equally ill-advised. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Default image size

Hey, in templates like this where the default image size seems to be coded right in, is there a way to manually change it in an article? Like, for example, at Edward the Elder, where the image is kind of small to begin with, and rendering it at 262px (or whatever this template's default is) makes the picture look unnecessarily pixilated and ugly. There's got to be some way around this, but I don't know it. Advice? Ford MF (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's an optional |imgw=<something> parameter that sets the image width. I know this because Dr. Kay just added it to Edward the Elder! Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's what I call service. Ford MF (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for peers

I noticed there are a lot of good articles about peers, but they really lack a nice infobox. I've tried to create one myself by using this infobox as an example, but I found it too hard. I will keep trying, but I hope someone will make an effort and create the infobox for peers (if you do, please notify me, so that I don't create the same infobox). Surtsicna (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who developed this from Template:Infobox Monarch and have carried out most of the major additions since, so I could certainly take that on. I'll take a look at it tomorrow. Actually, I guess it'll be today, but after I sleep! D B D 23:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you very much and I hope you slept well :) I will be glad to help by adding the infobox to the articles. The idea came to me when I read the article about John and Sarah Churchill; both of the articles are featured, but they have no infobox at all. When I was trying to create the infobox, I tried to make the name field green, as in Template:S-reg, but I couldn't even do that. Surtsicna (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a prototype for what I've called Infobox British Nobility and set out some examples. Frank and honest input welcomed. D B D 22:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I've been watching your prototype since yesterday! It's even better than I imagined, but I would propose removing the succession field from infboxes for peers by courtesy, because it's a bit confusing to read "Henry Somerset, Marquess of Worcester" and below that "Duke of Beaufort". Why not "Heir to 11th Duke of Bedford"? Surtsicna (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed D B D 00:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do comments belong here? I have a few suggestions for improvements....and some questions that might help designing it.

[1] If this is going to be an infobox for British peers - and that's what it should be for maximum utility - restrict it to actual peers. That means no courtesy titles, and no baronets. If they need a template, let them have another template. Mixing non-peerage titles and courtesy titles with substantive peerages is just going to be confusing. Courtesy titles especially, baronets less so, though including them might mislead unless the template itself makes clear that a baronet is not per se a peer.

[2] If you just use titles like "8th Duke of Queensberry", you're going to run into all kinds of difficulty, because numberings of peers are different between sources. There's no way to solve this completely, but you'd go a long way towards resolving most of the discrepancies by using a fuller description, such as "8th Duke of Queensberry of the 1642 creation". This will avoid many of the conflicts from titles that have been created more than once.

[3] Make sure that peerages that are distinguished by place names that are not part of the title proper give the right links. For example, "17th Lord Grey, of Wilton", "6th Lord Grey, of Codnor", "1st Lord Grey, of Rothermere", and "3rd Lord Grey, of Groby" should all link to Baron Grey.

[4] Will the template take more than one title? How will it handle titles that have different successors? - Nunh-huh 00:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The infobox seems to be for British nobility (peers, peers by courtesy, children of peers, and peeresses by marriage), not just peers.

[2] Why not include a field "Creation" and put it before "Duration"?

[4] I have a suggestion here. Take a look at es. wiki's Infobox Monarch. It seems like an efficient solution. Surtsicna (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Nobility" is a very nebulous thing in Britain; it's far less well-defined than on the Continent. Nobility isn't granted to, say, all of one's descendants in the male line in Britain as it is elsewhere in Europe. In Britain, there are three well-defined classes: the monarch, the peers, and commoners. There's no such thing as a "peer by courtesy" or a "peer by marriage". A person with only a courtesy title is a commoner, not a peer, and the spouse of a peer is also a commoner. It makes no sense to use one infobox for disparate classes of people. - Nunh-huh 12:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Why has this field even been added? DBD 13:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Becuase certain monarchs have signatures uploaded. See: Elizabeth I of England, George III of Great Britain, and Edward VIII of the United Kingdom. That is why it has been added. The Quill (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Scope and appropriateness of this template

!! time=20:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)}}

Once upon a time, in a land far away - Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty, a project which claims to cover British monarchs, from George I of Great Britain onwards, see Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty#Scope - this infobox was created. It was twice nominated for deletion and kept on the basis that it was fine for the British monarchy to have an infobox for all the rulers and their less important relatives, which was nice. But, as so often happens, it didn't stay like that. Goalposts were moved, scope crept steadily and before we knew it the template was spreading like herpes.

It turned up on Alfred the Great and Edwin of Northumbria and Æthelwulf of Wessex, none of whom were included in the original scope. It gets used on Scots monarchs, who certainly were no more British than the Anglo-Saxon ones. It's now used, based on a wide-ranging discussion by all three members of Wikipedia:WikiProject English Royalty, on post-1066 English rulers. It turns up on Danish kings like Canute the Great and Sweyn Forkbeard and on French magnates like Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou and Eustace IV, Count of Boulogne. It's on non-British non-monarchs Marjorie Bruce and Margaret of Scotland (Queen of Norway). It's on Mary of Guelders and Margaret of Denmark. It can only be a matter of time until we see it on Gruffydd ap Cynan, Hywel Dda, Niall of the Nine Hostages and Brian Boru, at which point people less reasonable than me will get involved.

Now the template itself is huge. I used the words crufty and bloated, and I'd stand by those. It's three times the size of {{Infobox Monarch}}. Most of the features it provides that the monarch box are simply irrelevant to pre-modern articles. It even has a visual glitch in that it inserts a newline before a list of children and is larger than necessary because it lists one sprog per line. If this template needs to be used on British monarchy people for esoteric reasons that only hard-core royalty-twitchers understand, I see no obvious reason why it needs to be used elsewhere. It's second best in most applications, bloat without benefit. It can include too much information, encouraging well-meaning editors to add incorrect or misleading information.

So, threat or menace? You tell me. Evidently my mind is made up, but I could live happily with no infobox at all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this change on the Anglo-Saxon kings; I agree with Angus that it should not be used there. I agree with Angus on his other points too. I'd also be fine with no infobox, as I don't think they add much value, but if we have them they should have appropriate scope and be used in accordance with that scope. Mike Christie (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with chidlren are harly any justification for a look at scope relevance. Now you've pointed out the problem I will go and fix it. It only will take a vcouple of seconds for someone to fix if you point it out. The Quill (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too, think that an infobox that is "British Royalty" has no business on monarchs or their relatives prior to George I. Much of the information isn't needed on pre-George monarchs, and it certainly has nothing to do with Scottish monarchs. Plain {{infobox monarch}} works just fine on anything before George. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness, Angus! POV much?! First, I'd like to address your criticisms of the template itself. I've been with this template through its entire history, so I'm almost uniquely able to shed some light on some of the reasons. Now, the "visual glitch" you mention is not any such thing — if you'd bothered to look in the edit history, you'd've come across this edit, where I changed both Titles and Issue to two rows. I can't find anywhere where the reason is described, but I'm fairly certain it's for length of names (as royalty do so often have very long styles). Secondly, the bloated, crufty lengthiness is neither of my doing nor supported by me (or anyone other than the editor The Quill). I personally think that, in good faith though they undoubtedly have been, The Quill's addition of several new sections are a bit too much. Also, re: scope: thank you for bringing this up, as I had intended to anyway. I recently noticed that the Category:Royalty and nobility infobox templates is almost entirely populated by clones of this very infobox. I would therefore say that this infobox has been much further outside its scope than either Wessex or Alba. So... That leaves us with a question — one or many? Should we create Infobox Scottish Royalty and Infobox before-England-was-united-English Royalty? Or should we create a universal Infobox Royalty combining every feature of the clone templates? D B D 21:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the best solution would be redirecting this infobox and all it's clones to a universal Template:Infobox Royalty (which currently redirects to Template:Infobox British Royalty). That would end this problem and many similar problems that have already occured. I wanted to propose this long time ago, but I was afraid that the creators of this infobox would not agree. Surtsicna (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point of an RfC is to get opinions, so evidently, yes, that was my point of view. Toned down a bit obviously since I omitted some of my related pet hates for which I hold the assorted royalty projects responsible, such as the ahnentafels which I saw being put in yet more inappropriate articles this week. Anyway, a universal template you said. Like {{infobox monarch}} or {{infobox person}} you mean? I have the suspicion that there's a solution available off the shelf if that's what is wanted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you would put {{infobox monarch}} on Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh? Or perhaps {{infobox person}}? Well, he's not a Monarch, so the first is out. Of course, he is a person, but surely that's a bit general? Wouldn't we then just as easily have {{infobox notable topic}}? D B D 02:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate infoboxes and would do away with all of them if I could. I have long found this one an annoyance and distraction and would love to see it pared down to the most basic data. Deb (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Angus, I mean universal infobox for royalty - Template:Infobox Royalty. We could redirect this template along with all it's clones to this universal template. It would look just like Infobox British Royalty (unless someone has other ideas). That would solve the problem, since this universal infobox could be used by all emperors, empresses, kings, queens, princes, and princesses, regardless of their country. It's quite simple... Surtsicna (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree seems ridiculous to have a separate infobox for each countries royalty, you don’t get different infoboxes for British, American, French actors, footballers etc you just have one standard infobox. - dwc lr (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different countries use different titles and styles and organise themselves in different ways you need different infoboxes for different countires because otherwise you would need so many options for it. People have been complaining that Infobox Briitsh Royalty is 4x the size of Infobox Monarch but if you put all the different options into one box you would have one thats it dunnoh 16x! The Quill (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about KB size, we're talking about length on screen. If we were to amalgamate the templates (for argument's sake prior to the military record and saint areas), not a one would show any change at all, since each one would only use the options it previously did. So screen length would remain the same (all things being equal), whilst we condense many templates into one, saving KB size. D B D 18:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think you need different infoboxes for different countries. Please compare Template:Infobox British Royalty and Template:Infobox Greek Royalty. What's the difference? The former has a different colour and a link to Full style of British sovereigns. That's it. Is that why we need 15 different infoboxes? Surtsicna (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A military section for a start... The Quill (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are such sections needed anyway? Infoboxes are supposed to give the most important informations (image, title, father, mother, reign, spouse, issue, house), not to be an article's summary. Why do we need a military section, a signature section, a section for saints, etc? That kind of information should be given in the article and we don't need redundancy. We also don't need infoboxes that are longer than articles. Is that the only reason to keep 15 clones of the same infobox? Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certain members of the Royal family hold positions that if they weren't royalty would qualify them for Infobox Military Person. The Military section is there to avoid double infoboxes which look messy and clog up the page yet are required. The Quill (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear about this, neither infoboxes nor particular fields in them are required. If present, infoboxes don't need to contain all information, just "summary or overview information about the subject". You may want to look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#General advice. Isn't military service "relevant to very few articles"? Isn't beatification "relevant to very few articles"? Isn't a link to a style page "relevant to very few articles"? Stick to the basics it says: "The availability of optional fields does not mean that all fields should be made optional, however, nor that large numbers of rarely used fields should be added without regard for the overall layout and ease-of-use of the infobox template." Seems pretty clear. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sainthood section perhaps, however, due to the close links between Royalty and the Military Britain (with the military being one of the few jobs roaylty feel they are treated as equals and not as betters) the military section could be used quite often. The Quill (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Angus here, we should probably prune these down. And if the sections aren't needed for an article, why shouldn't we use the much simpler (and smaller) {{Infobox Monarch}}? Let's face it, large chunks of the longer infoboxes fields are redundant on most of Wikipedia's articles on royalty. We don't have the relevant information on medieval monarchs. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both sections are relevant to very few articles. I still hold that creating a universal infobox called Template:Infobox Royalty would solve this problem, as well as many other problems. Infobox Royalty wouldn't label 11th century people as British and it could be used for all emperors and empresses, kings and queens, princes and princesses (and perhaps even for grand dukes and grand duchesses). Nobody has yet disputed the fact that this infobox (which would be a foundation for Template:Infobox Royalty) looks far better than Infobox Monarch. Besides, Infobox Monarch could not be used by any member of a royal family other than king or queen regnant. Surtsicna (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are considered getting rid of the template ( a bad idea if you ask me ) then you shoudl get rid of all of the and so this would mean that this talk should happen on a more general page. The Quill (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That’s true Surtsicna and according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#General advice “If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all”. - dwc lr (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be the only to support this proposal, although nobody has opposed either. Is there something wrong with this idea? Surtsicna (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the idea of removing the infoboxes? I am against removing the infoboxes in total, perhaps an arrangement such as that of Infobox Office Holder could be considered. The Quill (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't like the idea of removing the infoboxes. I proposed creating a universal infobox called Infobox Royalty. Infobox Royalty wouldn't label 11th century people as British = one problem solved. Another advantage is that it could be used for all emperors and empresses, kings and queens, princes and princesses, grand dukes and grand duchesses, which means no redundant royalty infoboxes. Surtsicna (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you'd have to ruthlessly simplify things if you want standardisation. Start from the ground up. What is truly essential? If you want it to be universal there's no point in starting from an Anglocentric recentist position. Is there any practical difference between the two ways of adding an image? For editors? For bots? For AWB? Do we really need configurable colours? Isn't it going to be obvious from the title and content that this is a French/Russian/Ethiopian/Siamese royal? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simplify what? Are you saying that there is a signicant difference between Infobox British Royalty and Infobox Greek Royalty/Infobox Spanish Royalty,/Infobox Russian Royalty/Infobox Hawaii Royalty, etc? Of course there isn't. I am not sure what do you mean by starting from an Anglocentric recentist position. As far as I am aware of, I'm 100% Slavic and therefore I could not possibly be Anglocentric. Perhaps you didn't understand what I meant. I proposed creating a universal infobox for all royalty (French, Russian, Ethiopian, Siamese, whatever). Infobox Royalty would resemble this infobox, but wouldn't cover only British royalty. We all agree that we do not need 15 infoboxes that only differ in colour. Anyway, Infobox Royalty would be a lot better than Infobox Monarch, since it could be used by all royalty (not just by monarchs but also by their spouses and offspring). Of course, it would look better, just like this infobox looks better than Infobox Monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anglocentric, eurocentric, same difference. You'd need to drop the recentist cruft - anthem, motto, occupation - use generic terminology - dynasty or family, not royal house - and add room for reign names &c, non-Latin representations, drop the presumption that rulers are crowned, inaugurated is vaguer and more generally applicable, or that people have full names, that places of birth and death are likely to be known or be worth including if they are, that titles and styles are anything other than "relevant to very few articles", and so on.

Start with the assumption that whatever you do should fit Charlemagne and his children and King Scorpion and Manco Cápac and the Kiangxi Emperor and his wives and whatever minor royalty are in Hello! this month and you'll be in with a chance of making a universal template. Of course, that would mean hard choices. Royalty is a big subject. It takes a great deal of boldness - hubris even - to believe that you can fit five millennia of history and the whole wide world into one standard format. It might not be possible. Deb's preference, on the other hand, does easily fit every article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A General Discussion about creatig a collective infobox should really take place on a different page as this affects not only British but all Royalty infoboxes. The Quill (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for anyone who's interested, I've created an Infobox Royalty prototype. Please feel free to create pages in that directory to test specific implementations and report any problems. It's very nearly all the same, but I'll do some doc tomorrow. D B D 01:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need all the different options for the countries like Austria, Bavaria etc. - dwc lr (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austria yes, Bavaria probably not, but the principle you are suigresting yes. The Quill (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not need options for different countries. It would be better to have special fields for European monarchs (such as coronation and royal house) and for Asian monarchs (era and posthumous name). It's great that DBD was patient enough to create such a complex infobox, but we don't need it so complex. We don't need different colours for different countries. Let's just pick one and stick to it. I like the idea of having "Religion" field included. I have no other objections regarding the infobox - it's a great improvement. Surtsicna (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need separate options for different countries we are literally going to need hundreds of them all that will be different is the colour. - dwc lr (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough — I'm still writing the doc and waiting for testing to happen. From that we can start to "evict" features or nominate new ones... D B D 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work do we know when the template will be ready? - dwc lr (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, blimey — I forgot to let people know! I last edited it eight days ago, and it's ready for testing, per my above advice. Please, please, please, test any and every situation you can think of! D B D 08:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought- in situations such as Napoleon, Louis-Philippe, and Napoleon III, they were all considered monarchs, but they took over power and were 'coronated' at different times. Is there a way to differentiate this? Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 19:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation is not the same as accession. That's why there is a section called reign, which gives the date of accession and the date of the end of reign. Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My main comments on the infobox are can we make the width 25em instead of 20 as this is the standard suggested width at WP:IBX and do we really need the realm parameter as all it effectively does is change the colour of the infobox. But on the whole having one standard royalty infobox instead of dozens of separate identical ones is a positive move. - dwc lr (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with DWC LR. The template should be a bit wider and the realm parameter is not necessary. Let's choose one colour (I propose the royal purple) and stick to it. Surtsicna (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I used the infobox for Zog of Albania (User:DBD/TIR/Zog) can anyone see why in the "succession2" field (President of Albania) Koço Kota comes up as successor instead of “Monarchy established” which I put in the parameter "successor2". - dwc lr (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a copy-and-paste error on my part. Fixed now. Cheers for flagging it! D B D 22:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I got to say sorry for all the templates I created. I think they were Mexico, Roman, Hessian, Celtic, Ancient Hellenic/Byzantine merged with the Greek, Ethiopian, and ect. I had no idea this was such a problem. I wonder if I should keep adding Infoboxes to the articles. I went through most of Russia and Saxony+the Ernestine duchies. I wonder if I should continue with the Hungarians, Hessians, and Roman emperors. Anyone, give me some advice. Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue adding Infoboxes to the articles! Those infoboxes won't be deleted, they will just be merged so using them until the new one is completed won't hurt. Surtsicna (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, when will we create the infobox? There are no objections to the prototype, so I assume that the infobox is ready to be used. Surtsicna (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe everything is ready so it will be good to get it out there asap. - dwc lr (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's out there! See Template:Infobox Royalty. I've redirected all the clones except for this template. Do we all agree to redirect this template too? Surtsicna (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is good but it doesn't include parts like sainthood which the British royalty does. The edits I made to articles like Giselle of Bavaria who was beatified is gone. So we need to include that. And I notice in the Sandbox archduke/archduchess is in the Russian part and there never existed Russian archduke/archduchess. I think it means to say grand duke/duchess

I support the idea of a universal Royalty infobox with country-specific options, with a couple of caveats. First, replacing the derivatives (they're not clones, as many have been modified to varying degrees) cuts right across the whole encyclopedia, it affects a huge number of projects. I'd suggest including a link to this discussion in edit summaries. Second, please make sure that all the fields get migrated - the recently added (by me) "Personal name" field from Template:Infobox Japanese Royalty didn't make it through as far as I could see. Here's a before and after shot for that template - someone should do a similar comparison for all the migrated infoboxes, just as a check.

Before, after.

Also, further discussion on this topic should probably go to Template_talk:Infobox Royalty to focus on improving that and coordinating the migration. Orpheus (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some fields were removed (by me) because they were surplus to requirements — for instance (I think) I deemed "full name" to be satisfactory for "personal name". And you're right, discussions on improving TIR should be at its talk page D B D 11:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And right there we have the problem with a universal template. Japanese emperors have a complicated naming system which isn't covered by "Full name" - see Emperor of Japan#Addressing and naming. It's by no means an insurmountable problem, and I still think a universal template is a very good idea, but it is going to need some care and input from the affected wikiprojects. Orpheus (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll continue this discussion here, but I need your permision to redirect this template to Template:Infobox Royalty. Do I have your permission? Surtsicna (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continued here... Orpheus (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's BRD... not BRRRRR....

It's Bold, Revert, Discuss, folks, not just revert revert revert. Shall we start discussing rather than reverting? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Quill was Bold in removing colour variations and adding several sections, I and others have reverted, but Quill hasn't grasped that the 'Revert' stage stops for the 'Discuss' stage. D B D 14:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have grasped that however it seems slightly hypocrtical of you as you are the one making the reverts. I am merely reverting the page back to the version that was in use when the discussion started. The Quill (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]