Template talk:Infobox royalty/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Discussion copied from Template talk:Infobox British Royalty

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 DBD 11:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Well, you need consensus, not my permission - I don't own the page! :) That said, personally I'm perfectly happy for the redirect to stand as long as all the fields are copied across to the new template.

Basically, you've got two changes here. One is a technical change (moving from specific templates to a generic one), the other is a content change (consolidating and removing fields). If I were you, I'd have a chat to the various wikiprojects about the content changes, but I don't see any reason not to go ahead with the technical changes. Orpheus (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean your permission, ;) I meant permission from all the users interested in this issue and especially permission from the creators of Infobox British Royalty. Of course, y permission I mean consensus. Anyway, I shouldn't be the only one to make those changes, don't you think? There isn't a lot to change, actually. All the articles that used those specific infoboxes now use this infobox (because the old infoboxes redirect to this one). We only need to add realm parameter (which for some reason doesn't work, but I'm sure it'll be fixed) and change royal house to house. Surtsicna (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that's the only missing bit? Have a look at the before and after screengrabs I linked above, for example. I think it's important to check that all the fields have been migrated. Orpheus (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been bold and redirected IBR. Surt, I believe I've just done what you were trying to — also, read the talkpage there for the reason that 'realm' is gone DBD 01:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, but why the parameter reign doesn't show up as consort for consorts? See Elizabeth of York, for example - it says that she reigned between 1486 and 1503, when in fact she was consort between 1486 and 1503. Surtsicna (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) That was because I'd changed how that all worked for IR. As you see, I've now written in backwards compatibility for those features in IBR. However, we did decide to use "Reign as consort", rather than "Consort" and "Spouse" rather than "Consort to", for clarity's sake. (Thus I revert you) DBD 17:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"In development" phase

Ok, so now we're in place, there'll be a few kinks to iron out, and a few changes people might want. I'd advise people keep a watch over the documentation as well, because that needs finalising too — some changes will be in intended use rather than in the code of the box. Feedback, as ever, is most welcome! DBD 17:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Scope

So, can we decide which articles will be entitled to use this infobox? I'd say all articles about people who had an imperial or royal title, thus excluding nobility and commoners. Does anyone have any other suggestion? Surtsicna (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobles and commoners with a very close relationship to the monarchy should be included. By this, I mean the grandchildren of monarchs who are closely considered to be members of the royal house, like the children of the Infantas Elena and Cristina of Spain, the children of Princess Martha Louise of Norway, Nicholas Medforth-Mills, the Casiraghis, etc. Morhange (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Simply put: they are not royalty. Explanation: none of the parameters this template has and Template:Infobox Person doesn't have could be used in their articles (like "house", "title", "titles and styles", etc), therefore Template:Infobox Person would be just enough. Surtsicna (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a general purpose royalty infobox is certainly an improvement on nation specific ones. However I don't think the scope of royalty is quite right. In particular I think we should differentiate between monarchs and other royalty. Reasons include:

1. there are fields required for monarchs that are not applicable to other royals (predecessor, successor, reign etc)
2. There are monarchs where the use of the term royal could generate needless debate, for example Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Napoleon I of France, Attila the Hun etc

So I propose that we use the existing Template:Infobox Monarch for monarchs, and use the new Template:Infobox Royalty for other members of royal families. This means the Infobox Royalty can be simplified (removing things like reign etc). It may require some addition to Infobox Monarch. Of course this makes the transition more difficult, but I believe the end result is better.

(Note that the Oxford Dictionary definition of monarch is (1) sovereign with the title of king, queen, emperor, empress or equivalent (2) a supreme ruler. So using Infobox Monarch for (eg) Attila the Hun seems much more reasonable than using Infobox Royalty)

Martin.Budden (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with using Infobox Monarch for rulers such as Attila the Hun, but using Infobox Monarch for only one member of a royal family would create unnecessary inconsistency. Queens consort and empresses consort are not monarchs, therefore we would need to use Infobox Royalty for their articles too. Furthermore, Infobox Monarch is quite plain when compared to this infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the purpose of my proposal was to bring more consistency. By having an objective criteria about when to use Infobox Monarch consistency is increased. Currently we have a situation where some rulers use Infobox Monarch and some use Infobox Royalty (I'm ignoring the fact that there is inconsistent use of nationality in royalty infoboxes, since that will soon be rectified). And as I said in my previous comment, there are some rulers where there could be considerable needless debate about whether they are royalty or not.

Using Infobox Monarch for rulers and Infobox Royalty for their consorts is an not inconsistency since there is a clear difference between a ruler and their consort. Finally the statement that Infobox Monarch is plain compared to Infobox Royalty is not an argument against its use - as I said in my posting, Infobox Monarch may require some additional fields.

Martin.Budden (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes

We should use full article titles as names for parents and issue (e.g. George VI of the United Kingdom instead of George VI; Victoria of the United Kingdom instead of Victoria, etc). Please see Frederick VIII of Denmark: two of his sons became kings, but they reigned in different kingdoms. Don't you think it's a bit inconsistent if we list one as Christian X and the other one as Haakon VII of Norway or confusing if we list Haakon as Haakon VII? It would also be confusing if we list James I of England's mother as Mary I, since he was of England and of Scotland (and we all know that there was a Mary I in England too). As you may guess, there are even more examples with the members of the House of Bourbon. Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The way I've personally intended and used it is that (on the article for A of B) we use [[C of B|C]] whenever (and only whenever) B is very obviously the same realm/crown/whatever. Haakon is therefore unaffected, so he remains [[Haakon VII of Norway]], just like Mary I of England's spouse is Philip II of Spain, and James I & VI's mother is [[Mary I of Scotland|Mary, Queen of Scots]] DBD 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but then [[C of B|C]] can be used only for predecessor and successor parameters (and I support the use of [[C of B|C]] for these parameters), because quite often a monarch of one country was child of monarch of another country (a king of Spain was father of a king of the Two Sicilies, a king of Denmark was father of a king of the Hellenes, a king of Denmark was father of a king of Norway, a queen of Scots was mother of a king of England, a queen of Navarre was mother of a king of France, etc). Moreover, it is not very obvious that Edward VII's mother "Victoria" is actually Victoria of the United Kingdom. Surtsicna (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say (for EVIIRI) "Mother: Victoria" is preferable to "Victoria of the United Kingdom" simply due to the redundancy in the latter. We could start using "Queen Victoria" instead though... For his next brother, The Duke of SCG & Edinburgh, I would recommend "Mother: Victoria of the United Kingdom", so it's clear he's not the son of something like a Duchess of SCG... DBD 13:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Further, I've just looked at how I did William the Conqueror's IBR — each succession section omits its realm, with his issue (who ruled different realms) listed as: Robert II "Curthose", Duke of the Normans; Richard, Duke of Bernay; William II "Rufus", King of the English; Adela, Countess of Blois; Henry I "Beauclerc", King of the English. So that's another option, to treat monarchs approximately like we do non-reigning peers. So Edward VII's mother would be "Victoria" or "Queen Victoria", whereas Alfred Duke of SCG's mother would be "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" DBD 14:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There are still problems. George III of the United Kingdom is one of the examples. I am sure you will agree that he was just as much King of Hanover as he was King of the United Kingdom. Then why should his sons be listed as "George IV", "William IV", and "Ernest Augustus I of Hanover"? It should be either "George IV", "William IV", and "Ernest Augustus I" or "George IV of the United Kingdom", "William IV of the United Kingdom", and "Ernest Augustus I of Hanover". Surtsicna (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute your reasoning or conclusion, because I must dispute your initial premise — "he was just as much King of Hanover as he was King of the United Kingdom". On the last line of the first paragraph of the article, it says (with a source) "Despite his long life, he never visited Hanover". Call me Britocentric (you'd be wrong, and committing ad hominem to boot), but it's quite obvious that the UK was/is the more significant of the two kingdoms — the article's title reflects this. DBD 01:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The UK was more important - there is no arguing about that. However, Wikipedia should retain neutral point of view and treat him equally as King of the UK and King of Hanover. Anyway, let's not go off topic. You said you don't dispute my reasoning or conclusion ;) Surtsicna (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but being based on a faulty premise, the argument fails utterly. I'm not terribly willing to budge here — I say "George IV", "William IV", and "Ernest Augustus I of Hanover", because it is obvious that the latter two are Kings of the UK. (And even if one is not totally sure, the links' alt-texts will confirm it) DBD 14:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see what's faulty - the UK and Hanover where equal (at least de jure). I say that "George IV of the United Kingdom", "William IV of the United Kingdom", and "Ernest Augustus I of Hanover" is less confusing and simpler to understand, especially when one is entirely unfamiliar with British history (like I was, before joining Wikipedia).Surtsicna (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

When name equals title

DBD, do you think that we should include a title in the infobox (below name) when the title is the same as the article's name: e.g. Prince Christian of Denmark. Why should "Prince Christian of Denmark" appear in the article's title, the lead sentence, and three times in the infobox? That creates unnecessary redundancy. I've removed title fields from infoboxes in articles about persons whose title equals their name, but some users feel that the infobox is not "complete" whithout that field. Surtsicna (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure what my intentions have been in the past, but of late, I have intended, for instance, name = Prince William; title omitted; styles= HRH Prince William of Wales. Since he has only one style throughout his life. I'd extend that to Prince Christian too, even though he's had two styles, they're v similar. But that's just personal preference DBD 22:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-substantive titles

We have practiced including names in the title field when the title is not substantive, in order to make distinction between the substantive titles and non-substantive titles or courtesy titles. Therefore we've had Title:Princess Beatrice of York, not Title:Princess of York or Title:Princess of the United Kingdom. User:DWC LR has opposed this on his talk page. What do the others think? Surtsicna (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think I’ve expressed an opinion one way or the other. - dwc lr (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Then please express an opinion, because it seems like you have double standards. You can either agree - and it that case you wouldn't mind me adding names to the title fields, or disagree - and in it that case you need to convince us that we should not make any difference between substantive and non-substantive titles. So please, express an opinion one way or the other. Surtsicna (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok take Prince Lorenz of Belgium, Archduke of Austria-Este the title field looks very messy I don't see why all his titles need to be listed or if they have to be why his name is mentioned three times "Prince Lorenz of Belgium; Archduke and Imperial Prince Lorenz of Austria; Royal Prince Lorenz of Hungary and Bohemia" we get it his name is Lorenz. In most cases name and title fields you are gonna say "Prince XXXX" then "Prince XXXXX of XXXXX" why not stick that in the name field. I don't think you particularly need to make a difference between a substantive and non substantive title in an infobox anyway. - dwc lr (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The title of Prince Lorenz of Belgium, Archduke of Austria-Este article is messy itself and that's a bigger issue than the titles in infobox (which, by the way, I would cut to substantive titles only + Belgian royal title as the only de facto title). Are you saying that you would have Princess of the United Kingdom or Princess of York in the title field for Princess Beatrice of York article infobox? Surtsicna (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I like your preference for only putting substantive titles in the "title" field and so I would leave the Princess Beatrice article as it is and remove the title field from Archduke Felix of Austria and just put name=Archduke Felix. For Lorenz I would probably; name=Prince Lorenz of Belgium title=Archduke of Austria-Este - dwc lr (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Then we agree perfectly! I wonder how that soultion didn't come to my mind before! I'll edit those articles immediately :) Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Event microformat

For centralised discussion of my revert of the addition of an hCalendar microformat, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microformats#hCalendar not for biographies. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The change presents no perceptible harm to articles, and provides benefit: accurate biography information to other internet applications as described on page cited above. The change will therefore be restored. -J JMesserly (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The harm has already been descried in the centralised discussion. Please stop edit warring and discuss instead, per WP:BRD. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly noted in multiple locations where this has been discussed, most importantly WP:UF, all requests for citations that the addition is in any way an illegal encoding, or that the change represents harm have been left unanswered. Without support for the allegation of harm, the change should remain as is. -J JMesserly (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring; you have demonstrated no consensus for your proposal. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Colour

I don't think the current pale pastel violet is very appropriate. It is appropriate for princesses not for kings and princes. It's just too feminine. I really like the red that was on the Norwegian template before the redirect were put into effect (this). __meco (talk)

Titles and styles

The Titles and styles field is really superfluous. It is not needed in the infobox. All articles have a special section for titles and styles, and some articles even have articles for titles and styles. The infobox is supposed to contain only basic information and not the whole article. I propose removing the field altogether. Surtsicna (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, you can provide much more detail on an individuals titles and styles through their life in a "Titles and styles" section of an article anyway, the field in the infobox is unnecessary. - dwc lr (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I also propose removing Anthem field. It has nothing to do with a person's life and it's super superfluous. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. I would also question if the fields relating to christening's are nessacry as they should really be written about in the main text imo and are unnecessary for an infobox. - dwc lr (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the christening part is superfluous too. What's next, a list of godparents? Surtsicna (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I remind everyone that every field is optional. We may simply cease preferring to use particular ones, without necessarily destroying them. DBD 22:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But if a certain field makes the infobox too long and more unhelpful than helpful, isn't it easier to simply remove the field from the infobox than editing each article? If we don't plan to use a field anymore, why should we keep it? Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Anthem is also unnecessary. How is an anthem siginificant to a person's life or notable in a biography? Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Tenure vs. duration

Which word should be used to describe the period that somene spends as royal consort? I propose tenure, while DBD proposes "duration". According to dictionaries, "tenure" means:

• "the condition of holding something in one's possession, as real estate or an office; occupation".
• "the act or right of holding property, an office, a position, etc."

...while "duration" means:

• "a period of existence or persistence".

72 authors mention "tenure as queen", while no author mentions "duration as queen". Surtsicna (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Time as queen" would seem simplest. Rich Farmbrough, 02:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC).

That would not work for all consorts; if the royal title is Prince Consort of the United Kingdom, "Time as queen" certainly wouldn't work because Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was never a queen. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Native name

The "native name" parameter has just been removed from this template, with the justification "The infobox is supposed to provide only the most basic biographical information and the basic information related to a person's reign. Native name(s) should be discussed in the article.". Many other biographical infoboxes include native names; I believe that any assertion that this is not correct should be be debated at a higher level than a single infobox, and until there is consensus for the removal of native names form all such infoboxes, it should be restored here. It's worth remembering that this infobox emits an hCard microformat about the subject, and that can include the native name. I'd also contend that the removal of native names in some cases is likely to be offensive to some, on the grounds of racial or imperial sensitivities, and generate NPoV disputes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The native name parameter is highly useless and problematic when it comes to using this infobox. Why? Because determining one's native name is problematic. Kings often reigned over multiple realms and had a native name in each of their realms; royal persons often spoke language other than their realm's language; princesses almost always married foreigners and "changed" their names, etc. All this leads to multiple native names which are not notable enough to be included in the heading of the infobox. Having a name in Arabic/Chinese included in the heading of an infobox isn't much helpful to a person who speaks English. The native names can be (and usually are) given in the lead sentence. Surtsicna (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Virtually all of which could apply to any other notable person, using one of the other infoboxes to which I refer; so I repeat: I believe that any assertion that this is not correct should be be debated at a higher level than a single infobox, and until there is consensus for the removal of native names form all such infoboxes, it should be restored here. Though you final sentence does rather undermine your other assertions. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand; are you claiming that virtually all other persons have more than one "native name" and how does my final sentence undermine my other assertions? Surtsicna (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Prime Ministers in the infobox

I suggest having a Prime Ministers section in the infobox and linking pages such as List of Prime Ministers of Queen Elizabeth II, List of Prime Ministers of King George VI, List of Prime Ministers of King George V and so on. For monarchs such as King George I (who only had one PM during his reign) the Prime Ministers could just be listed. This has been done before, with no edit to this template required, using the Regent field as can be seen here. The edit was reverted as there hadn't been a discussion, so this is why I've started one! --Philip Stevens (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Colour (2)

Is it just me, or has the infobox changed colour at least four times today? -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, just testing. We seem to love purple around here, I see the reason why... Himalayan 18:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Monsieur Himalayan, we are now aware that you are fond of Magenta but to be honest it looks vile on the royalty/nobility infobox..LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Magenta? It was Maroon (color), the same color as the Infobox monarch was for years and nobody thought it looked vile. Damn, the exact same color you think is vile is being used for Alexander II of Scotland and every other monarch article on here. Why not standardise the royalty coloring. I find is rather odd you think that this looks "vile" given that the exact color is used in every article about a monarch too. Himalayan 19:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the colour used by Template:Infobox Monarch is bad (bad being a huge understatement). We've developed this infobox because it looks much better than Template:Infobox Monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 20:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur, Surtsicna. -- Jack1755 (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Templates should not be forked over mere aesthetics. I'd rather these templates moved towards a merge if that's the primary rationale behind being split. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course not! This template was not developed because it looks better than Infobox monarch. This template enables us to include different titles held during different periods and inherited from different people (see how it is used in articles about monarchs who reigned over different states (see how the article about James I of England looked with Infobox monarch and how it looks like now with Infobox royalty), image adjustment, wider scope (Infobox monarch can be used only for monarchs, while articles about their spouses and children would need another infobox; using this infobox also avoids POV-pushing when one's status as monarch is disputed), etc. Surtsicna (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the Monarch template should be merged here. If it's strictly inferior, why have any articles use it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with merging the template here. I have been replacing Infobox monarch with Infobox royalty wherever I see it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As would I — in fact I'm currently working my way systematically through WP:SRoy DBD 21:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Format error (issue=)

There appears to be an extraneous br in presenting issue in the infobox. See Anne Boleyn for an example. Had a quick look at here, but didn't want to introduce further errors by a poor understanding of what is trying to be achieved by the code. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox:royalty v. Infobox:monarch

Since I haven't been on WP much lately, I knew nothing of what's been happening here or I would have been giving my tuppence worth. Today I changed the infobox from royalty to monarch in Robert II of Scotland because I felt that the royalty box looked unbalanced due to Issue field rendering the names to the left and under the name Issue instead of being like all of the other fields tabbed to the right and being on the same line as the field name. Surtsicna doesn't see a problem but has asked me to respond here. I have absolutely no problem with the royalty box apart from this one issue. --Bill Reid | (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have another question. How different between those two infoboxes? I am confused which one to use. Why don't they merge them into one? --Octra Bond (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A place for date (or location) of marriage?

This for all practical purposes, replaces the general or officeholder information box for monarchs and their consorts, but includes no line for the date (or place) of their marriage. Even a lay reader would probably like to know from a quick glance at the Information Box whether a consort married before or after a monarch's accession or coronation. This might also help to clarify the inherently-hard-to-compress distinction between a high-born consort's heritage (titles and house) by birth and that acquired by marriage. Is there a solution short of adding a general biographical or Officeholder infobox template? —— Shakescene (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Why is spouse on the left and issue centered? It looked better in the previous format.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A place for date and/or location of wedding is hardly neccessary. Henry VIII married six times. Giving date and place of every wedding would be simply ridiculous in infobox of any article, let alone the one in the article about Henry VIII. The infobox is not supposed to contain every little detail (such as the place of their wedding!). A reader is supposed to be interested in the article enough to actually read it. We can't and shouldn't place the entire article into the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)