Template talk:Infobox monarch

Usage

{{Infobox monarch
| name               = 
| title              = 
| image              = 
| caption            = 
| reign              = 
| coronation         = 
| investiture        =
| full name          = 
| birth_name         =
| native_lang1       = 
| native_lang1_name1 = 
| native_lang2       = 
| native_lang2_name1 = 
| othertitles        = 
| baptism            =
| birth_date         = 
| birth_place        = 
| death_date         = 
| death_place        = 
| burial_date        = 
| burial_place       = 
| predecessor        = 
| suc-type           = 
| heir               = 
| successor          = 
| queen              = 
| consort            = 
| consortreign       =
| consortto          =
| spouse             = 
| spouse 1           = 
| spouse 2           = 
| issue              = 
| royal house        = 
| dynasty            = 
| royal anthem       = 
| royal motto        =
| father             = 
| mother             = 
| religion           =
| signature          =
}}

British monarchs

I would like to see this template used on all the British monarch pages. Currently, the House of Tutor and afterwards have those "British Royalty" templates which are about the House rather than the specific monarch. --JW1805 17:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Colourisation & WikiProject British Royalty

I've added some colour to the template - mostly to fall in with WP:BRoy. However, this template will slowly be replaced by Template:Infobox British Royalty -- DBD 23:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The colourisations have been reverted as they made the box difficult to read and the langauge used in the template was overly complex. Also, we don't need different colour schemes for different people. Nor do we need a different template specifically for members of the British royal family. --Bob 01:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit

Hello,
Could you please add an interwiki-link to the Dutch version of this template? This is a link: Sjabloon:Monarch.
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 16:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Cheers! – Luna Santin (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Length of Reign

I wonder if it might be helpful to have the template automatically insert the length of the monarch's reign next to the dates of his or her reign (just as some of the other templates for people automatically insert the person's age).--Tabun1015 02:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested change

{{editprotected}}

Could it be made so that "Birthplace" appears if a place of birth is specified but a date of birth isn't, for monarchs where the date of birth is unknown? Currently the contents of the "place of birth" field are preceded by a blank space, with the expectation that "Born" and the date of birth will be above it. --Ptcamn 08:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. --ais523 11:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Place of burial

I'm trying to generate a list of places of burial for all English monarchs. Is there a way to manipulate the data contained in the articles using this infobox to generate such a list? At the moment, I don't see a parameter for country, so I'm not sure how different countries can be separated out. Carcharoth 15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit-sections

I've got a question concerning the edit-sections using this template. On nl.Wikipedia.org we've got a similar template but the edit-sections in an article next to the template are apearing under the template (example: nl:Constantijn de Grote). How did you solve this problem? Evil berry 11:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Children

{{editprotected}} A section should be included for children of the monarch too (See Abdullah of Saudi Arabia). thestick 00:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Queen, consort, spouses

I have a problem with these entries. First, the title of "queen". It is not needed, consort alone suffices as this is a monarch infobox, for use by monarchs and there spouses. Also, for the section of spouses, it shows up as "wives". It should be gender neutral and just say "Spouse(s)". Thirdly, the section for consort should have more entries in it. Holy Roman Emperor Francis II had four wives, three of whom were consorts to him as emperor. In summary, we only need "consort" and "spouse" entries, with some more spaces for consorts and get rid of the queen entry since it really is not needed. Charles 19:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, my solution at Template:Infobox British Royalty, one field, whose manifestation changes according to an initial property... DBD 17:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks good, but would there be a possibility of compacting both into an template called Template:Royal or something like that? Charles 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall there being objections to that when IBR was first created, but your suggestion makes a boatload of sense (although prob Template:Infobox Royalty might be better), so please do look into it and, if possible, get the ball rolling! DBD 11:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you a suggestion as to where I should initialize this? Charles 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

One would suppose Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Royalty and Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty would be the 'interested parties', so a discussion at the former, with a note to the latter? DBD 11:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've made some additions to my copy of T:IBR, which would add functionality suiting any merger DBD 18:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

See here. Charles 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

change colour

I was going to change the colour from the generic light blue to "plum", to symbolise the royal "purple". However I found the purple to be a bit too dark. But I thought it better to ask here first how the reception is. I tried it once, it looks pretty good, I hope I can get your support...? Gryffindor 00:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea to change colour, but I don't think this shade of purple suits the Roman imperial style very well. Tyrian purple was really more of a dark red. I suggest a change to this colour: _________ Regards. --Steerpike 22:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Sorry, I was under the impression the box applied only to Roman emperors, but it seems to be a general 'monarch' box. Still, I prefer my suggested colour over the current purple. --Steerpike 14:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I support Steerpike's proposal. /Slarre 09:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not happy about this colour red because to me it looks almost Communist, see Communist_party. What is wrong with the imperial purple? Or can we have a more "royal" red? Gryffindor 11:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the Royal blue which is described at the List of colours. It would look like this: colour: _________. -- Imbris (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have a colour in the first place? There evidently isn't one particular colour which denotes "royalty" to everyone, not least because this template is used in various places other than for European monarchs, and WP's template documentation discourages using colour without an explicit key. Infoboxen have gradually been losing their non-standard styling over the years, and it may be best just to drop the colour entirely. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Issue" is confusing; use "Offspring"

The use of the term "issue" is archaic jargon and a disservice to the readership. I propose changing it to "Offspring", or if that is unsuitable for some reason, "Progeny". 76.254.79.159 (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was able to make this change, here and at Template:Infobox British Royalty. This template is not protected, contrary to the box at the top of this talk page. 76.254.79.159 (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

See my reply at Template talk:Infobox British Royalty DBD 22:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In that reply, you provided no reasons that "issue" might be superior to "offspring," and in my subsequent reply, I provided four reasons that it is not. I am disappointed that you seem to think that discussion is more important than using a term which is far more familiar to the typical English reader -- especially beginners. I am reverting back. 76.254.79.159 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, you reverted the template but not the corresponding changes to the documentation. 76.254.79.159 (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts required

I would like to draw people's attention to discussion on Template talk:Infobox Buddhist biography.

This information box is being used on each of the articles on the Dalai lamas as well as other lamas, it's usage is variable and three boxes now exist which could be used. I've made a suggestion there which I think will fix this and expand that template's usage. Thanks.--Alf ^melmac 21:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is the original HTML program ??

I need the original HTML script for creating this infobox template. This is because I am trying to build a similar template in Sanskrit Wikipedia. So the HTML script of this template would be useful. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not done.  Skomorokh  11:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Template:Infobox monarch → Template:Infobox constitutional monarch — This requested move is in lieu of a deletion proposal. I do not think this template should be implemented universally for all "monarchs". In fact, I would like to delete it from a great many pages on pre-modern monarchs. Perhaps it would be best deleted from all article, but I don't care about modern monarchs enough to look into it. So, I propose a re-purposing of this template, specifically a restriction on its use, indicated by the renaming. Here are the reasons:

1. The infobox tempts editors who don't know better to add information which is highly uncertain as if it were fact. (Remember, pre-modern monarchs.) An example of this can be read about here with respect to an infobox here. Never is anything in the infobox sourced or footnoted.
2. The infobox tempts editors who don't know better to add images which are of no value whatsoever. See Hugh Capet. The caption tells the reader that the image is a pure fantasy with no relation whatsoever to any actual Hugh Capet. It represents nothing but a picture designed to entertain children. And it isn't even entertaining! If it depicted a fantasy-Hugh doing something the real-Hugh did, I could tolerate it. As it is it detracts from the page and probably misleads a great many readers about what tenth-century French kings looked like.
3. The infobox concentrates on that information which is least important with respect to most pre-modern monarchs. These were active rulers (generally). Their genealogies, their wives and concubines, their offspring, their dynastic connexions were all important (in varying degrees), but the most important things about Charlemagne—namely, what he did—are compeltely absent from his infobox. These monarchs were not figureheads, nor were they merely the highest rank of nobility.
4. The infobox takes up a lot of space usually merely duplicating information that could be more readably presented in the lead paragraph(s). Is it so hard to mention dates of life and reign, the names of successor and predecessor and of main wives in the lead? In sentences?
5. The infobox usually makes the lead image appear smaller than it otherwise would and discourages interesting and informative captions. The only images that seem tolerated by those who make these infoboxes are portraits, even though few such exist for ancient and medieval monarchs, bringing me back to point 2. It also forces the lead image to always be right-aligned, although the wisdom of this is disputed when it comes to images that are right-facing.
6. In light of points 3 and 4, I wonder if the infobox violates WP:NPOV in deciding what information needs to be duplicated at the top of the page in a special attention-grabbing box.
7. Aesthetics. (There is no need to argue this point: you either see it or you don't. But I urge you to think about it.)

—Srnec (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, infoboxes should be used in all monarch articles. Under nominators proposal, we'd have to delete infoboxes from the Jordanian & Moroccan monarchs (for example). GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • That is false. Both the Jordanian and Moroccan monarchs are constitutional monarchs (as well as modern monarchs, which I also implicitly exempted). Also, can I ask why your mere opinion (which is all I can see that you have given us) should matter in the absence of any argument? You state "oppose", then an opinion, then a false factual statement. Is there an argument? I believe I presented reasons and arguments for my proposal. —Srnec (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If you move this Template, you'll have to create a Template: Infobox absolute monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I would propose such a template for deletion. That is my point: such monarchs do not need an infobox like this one. Specifically, ancient and medieval European monarchs. I cannot speak with certainty about other circumstances. I would not mind in the least if all monarch infoboxes disappeared, but I am trying to seek a compromise based on those circumstances where I am quite sure the infoboxes do not help but in fact harm. —Srnec (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, all biography articles should have an infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I respect your opinion and your right to express it here, ever so humbly, but does it matter here? A discussion requires arguments or it is just a collection of singular statements of opinion. —Srnec (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is a step towards 'deleting' infoboxes from absolute monarchs. I shant support this. PS. whatever the final choice is? I'll respect it. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but why should your opinion be taken into account without argument? I was under the impression that our opinions were in and of themselves irrelevant at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a democracy. —Srnec (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested page/template moves are always met with 'support' & 'oppose'. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but unless supported by arguments these are worthless. Not every "voter" need post an argument, s/he may refer to the argument of another with which they agree. They may even just post their position, assuming arguments for both sides have been offered we can take the "votes" as an indication of how persuasive the arguments were. I am just stressing that you have not in any way countered even one of my enumerated reasons, and so I have no way of understanding your opposition as anything other than a random opinion. —Srnec (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerning 'Point 4', there's no problem with having title/reign/birth/death shown in an Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But all of that is in the lead already! Such side-by-side duplication seems unnecessary. —Srnec (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't hurt it, either. Anyways, I'll let the closing administrator decide if my 'oppose' is credible. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see any of the reasons given in the proposal as being good ones for renaming (and limiting the scope of, although a move per se doesn't do that) this template. The purpose of infoboxes is to provide a standardized format for summarizing common information about similar subjects (in this case, things like dates of rule, successor, etc.), so that readers do not have to hunt for it in the article's prose, where it may appear using a wide array of wordings and placements. This infobox serves that purpose for both modern and non-modern monarchs. Points 4-6 are general issues for all infoboxes, and do not arise specifically from the use of the box for pre-modern monarchs. Changing the name will fix none of them (assuming, arguendo, that they are problems at all). Points 1 and 2 are issues with the editing of the articles. If claims in an infobox are unsupported, images unworthy, etc., then this can be addressed in exactly the same way it is for article prose: by editing the content. If necessary, infoboxes can even contain references (although this should not be necessary in most cases if references are supplied in the body text). Only point 3 mentions anything significantly different between modern and pre-modern monarchs, and even it focuses mostly on the fact that infoboxes contain only selected information, which is again a common feature of infoboxes that will not be changed by a renaming. Point 7 is too vague for me to comment. So while I sympathize with the nominator for any problems they have keeping bad info out of infoboxes, renaming is not the solution. --RL0919 (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope it was clear that I propose changing the name in order to justify removing the infobox where, under its new name, it will clearly not belong. Otherwise I'd propose for deletion, as I think infoboxes add nothing. This is an attempt at compromise and I hope it can be treated as such.

I do not believe that critical information contained in the first two paragraphs requires "hunting". The other information (marriages, issue) is regularly presented in a section of its own. As to redressing problems in the infobox by editing: this wastes the time of good editors haggling with folks who just don't know what they're talking about. But the bigger problem, about which perhaps I wasn't clear, is that in many pre-modern cases there is no certainty and no clear way to put things. They cannot be tidied up and fitted into an infobox. At all. But rehashing this argument in hundreds of cases on hundreds of talk pages should not be necessary when the infobox in general is not applicable to such articles.

As to point 3, I intend that a template for "constitutional monarchs" not be used in the case of, say, Charlemagne, who was not a constitutional monarch. Renaming is not the solution. Removing is. I am attempting that by renaming and thus repurposing. How else should I go about this? —Srnec (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose They're fine as they are, tidy and useful. IMO there is no clear rationale to delete/rename; infoboxes belong on the articles of all monarchs, just as they belong on the articles of all politicans. I don't think an editors personal dislike of infoboxes should shape an encyclopedia. Though its good you decided to try get the issue settled. As for some of the points brought up, this goes too far in to obscurantist academia and makes me think of tweed jackets with leather patches for some reason. The "coin" as the main image on Charlemange's article is barbaric (surely in this context its ironic that "aesthetics" are brought up in the rationale?). Throughout much of European history, Charlemange has been popularly depicted in art with a long beared (for many, many centuries), thus that is what we should use too. Use what is free and of the highest possible quality. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You have presented not one argument, only opinion. Did I ask you about my personal dislikes? Look at the arguments. If they are "obscurantist academia" (how would you even know?) does that make them bad arguments? You have no argument either way. The coin (why the scare quotes?) at Charlemagne is not barbaric, it is clearly based on Roman models—the opposite of barbaric! So how is making it, a contemporary image of Charles as he wished to be seen, barbaric? It's all irrelevant anyway: you forgot to read the parenthesis after my point 7. —Srnec (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Although I'm sure many use it for "constitutional" monarchs, I use this template for earls and other like rulers in the Middle Ages. No, it's not perfect, but it's problems will be fixed by changing or adding to the parameters and fixing the design, not giving it a longer name. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The "heir" field

What's up with the "heir" field? It just floats there, for no apparent reason, between predecessor and successor, and has no label, so readers aren't going to know what it is. PS: Isn't there some other term to use than "predecessor"? That word actually means "one who died before" so it is not an accurate term to use in all cases (e.g., abdications, no-fatal usurpings, etc.) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Background of the title field

It's so dark it makes blue links quite hard to read, see e.g. Genghis Khan. I think people with some flavour of colour-blindness (as well as people printing it down in black and white) might be unable to read them at all. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 09:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. It violates our accessibility guidelines for color contrast. I know people like to have some kind of color-coding system for different types of infoboxes, but it's completely pointless. No one will see the purple and think, "Ah, yes, a Monarch." They'll just see purple and think it's strange. The default infobox color should be used, so the text can speak for itself. —Designate (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the template worked OK until somewhat recently. It still looks pretty good when the titles aren't wiki-linked (for example see: Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick). Maybe someone can go through the template's recent history and see what caused the problem (for example I think Magioladitis's edits might have messed things up). I don't understand template-coding very well so I'm uncertain.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It was the changes by Eaglewanli to the article on the 23 June 2011 that added the links in the title. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, wiki-linked titles used to work OK. For example, the version of the template you edited on 8 May 2011 showed titles like this: User:Brianann_MacAmhlaidh/draft. I suppose we'll have to go back to something like that, or unlink all the titles.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The older version worked because the title parameter is shown below the coloured box rather than within it. I've placed an updated version in the sandbox with the title moved out of the coloured box. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Side by side comparison

{{Infobox monarch}}	{{Infobox monarch/sandbox}}
Genghis Khan Khagan of the Mongol Empire (Supreme Khan of the Mongols) King of Kings Emperor of China Reign spring, 1206 – August 25, 1227 (more than 21 years)	Genghis Khan Khagan of the Mongol Empire (Supreme Khan of the Mongols) King of Kings Emperor of China Reign spring, 1206 – August 25, 1227 (more than 21 years)

That's a lot better. I guess my next question is, is there any reason to even have the background color for the name? What's it achieving? —Designate (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I support the change above and also ask why there is color present at all. --Bob247 (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Let's follow the infobox person scheme. No background color is needed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be OK with the right-hand side example, provided the documentation explicitly tells not to use links because they're hard to read against the dark background. I'd be OK with using the default Infobox person colours, too. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 10:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The right-hand example looks OK to me too. I'm OK with with the background colour only behind the name, because it's easy to tell where the name ends and the title begins. It means that there is less chance of readers becoming confused when dealing with foreign names and titles. I don't think a bit of colour is a bad thing; luckily the colours contrast each other pretty well.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've made the change in live now to remove the background colour from the title param. -= WOSlinker (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

There was an attempt by Earth Wikipedian to put back the purple. As far as I can see this discussion agrees to use the red, so I reverted to the red, which was put in by WOSlinker. I can't even read the light purple with the white lettering. It ruins the template. I would never use the light purple in any article I am working on. It looks awful. The red catches the eye, add a bit a color to the page. So, I'm throwing in on the red background white lettering side. Unless another vote is taken that reverses the decision I will continue to revert the light purple.Dave (talk) 02:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

For Issue field

Hello,

Suggesting 'Issue' to replace 'Offspring', per Template:Infobox royalty wordings.

Thanks.इति इतिUAनॆति नॆति Humour Thisthat2011 09:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Eh?

Can someone please tell me what the difference is between "offspring" and "children" and why we need two separate categories in the box to cover this information? --Folantin (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"Issue" field has become "children"

At some point issue was renamed children. Of course, all the articles that use "issue" now don't display children. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

At some point issue was renamed offspring. At some point children was added. However, though the code seems to be written to recognize both issue and offspring, it does not recognize either of them, just the children field.

A field that does work with two versions is:

data8 = {{{birth_name<includeonly>|{{{birth name|}}}</includeonly>}}}

But the issue/offspring field has:

data33 = {{{issue<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}} {{{offspring<includeonly>|</includeonly>}}}

Can someone please fix this. Or if you feel this is the right fix to make, I'll edit the template. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I am moving "children" field back to "issue"

First, there are 2535 articles which use this template. After the change from "issue" to "children" most of those infoboxes no longer display the children. Any change has to be backward compatible and preserve what is already out there. So that we can see the children again in the infoboxes on those pages I am changing back, but keeping "children" as an alternative so we don't lose anything with that field.

List of articles using Template:Infobox monarch

Second, "issue" is the standard British English in formal lists of children of royalty. See Template:Infobox royalty and Template:Infobox noble. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National_varieties of English we don't edit articles to change from one variety of English to another. For example, an article that starts out using the spelling colour should not be edited to change it to the American version, color.

StarryGrandma (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've always wondered about the word "issue", can an adopted child count as "issue"? Timmyshin (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Unique fields

All these unique fields better be added Template:Infobox royalty. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Points to wrong discussion section

When this template appears in articles, the merge notice says "See templates for discussion" and links to the non-existent section: 2013_July_13#template:Infobox_monarch. It should link to 2013_July_13#template:Infobox_royalty. Nurg (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Infobox monarchy which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)