Template talk:Infobox royalty/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Entry for personal coat of arms or/and standard

I think the template should contain options for introducing the personal coat of arms or/and the personal standard used by the royal person. --Alex:D (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is information belonging to the person and is in keeping with other infobox uses such as military, countries and such. Plus it limits clutter in the text, where including a separate image of the standards and COA doesn't always fit nicely. -- BenTels (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The infobox should be kept as simple as possible. We really don't need every single detail in the infobox. The text of the article is the place for such details. Almost every article about a royal person contains a "Titles, styles, honours and arms" section. That's a whole section for writing about the person's arms, standards, etc. If we keep adding parameters for every single detail, we'll soon have infoboxes longer than the main bodies of articles. The basic information are: dates of reign, date of coronation, dates and places of birth, death and burial and names of dynasty, parents and children. Nothing else is needed! Surtsicna (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Before I get into real arguments, I have to be perfectly honest and say that at first I thought you were making a joke. A call for simplicity in a template that had something like 81 parameters before I added the standard and coat of arms???

You are correct in that almost every royal article has a section on titles and honors (although most of them do not mention arms and only a few mention styles). However, I don't buy that argument. Reason being, there's a section in every royal biographical article for everything in the infobox. You mention date and place of birth, death, burial? Those have belonged in the first line of every biographical article in every language since long before there were infoboxes. Parents? First paragraph. Dates of reign too. Simply that you can put it somewhere else, doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the infobox. If it did, you'd have to dissolve all the infoboxes because nothing would belong there.

I agree that you have a point that you can get ugly effects and infoboxes that are longer than articles. There's a reason I made the images for standards and COA's small in the box. But that an infobox can become larger than the article main body is, to me, not a reason not to put the data in (especially since most of what is in that infobox is optional so you usually have shorter boxes); rather, I consider it an indication that the article is missing data, because there has to be more that can be said of a person than fits next to an infobox.

Here's the crux of the matter. The whole point of an infobox, it's whole added value for an article, is that it gives a succinct and convenient summary of the topical, biographical data of a person. In the case of nobility (including royalty), that includes any standards and coats of arms. Why? Because they are allowed a standard and COA because of their position. A standard is not an honor like a knighthood or a nobel prize; you don't get it because you earned it or won a contest. Prince Claus for instance was allowed a standard because he was Prince of The Netherlands, not because he was a nice guy. You are allowed a standard because of your position, because it's part of the package. That makes it biographical and means it belongs in the infobox, just like the flag and coat of arms of a country belong in that infobox, or the insignia for a political post in that infobox.

Just to make the distinction clear, I agree with you that (for example) there's no place in the box for the fact that Prince Willem-Alexander was granted the French Grand Cross of the National Order of Merit. But that's really a personal honor, something that must be granted — he didn´t get it as a formality of being the Prince of Orange.

Just as an aside to all this, particularly in the case of Dutch royalty, I don't think it is a good idea to put the standard in the sections on honors and such. Most of them are already full to overflowing due to the presence of the royal styles box and such (or are very small) and putting the standard in as an image will result in a mess in lots of places. -- BenTels (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not like the fact that the template had "something like 81 parameters " before you added two other parameters. Even if the template had more parameters than it needed, you certainly didn't help by adding more unneccessary parameters.

"Reason being, there's a section in every royal biographical article for everything in the infobox." No, there isn't. There is no special section called "Date or birth", "Father", "Mother", "House", etc. It's mentioned in the lead sentence, introduction or any other part of the article but those parameters have no sections of their own.

It's not only unneccessary. It's unpractical as well. Monarchs used to change their coats of arms several times during their lifetime, in order to indicate a new possession or a claim. How is that going to be indicated by this parameter? How are we going to use it in the article about Philip II of Spain?

I am not buying the argument that we absolutely must have standards or coats of arms in the infobox because royalty is allegedly unimaginable without them. Surtsicna (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"I do not like the fact [...]" Like it or not, that's the way it was. And I don't agree that the new parameters are unnecessary.

"There is no special section [...]" Even without a section heading, the introduction is still a section. The point is, if you're going to limit infobox contents based on the fact that the information can be mentioned elsewhere in the article as well (making it unnecessary in the infobox), then you're automatically killing the infobox (because the entire infobox content is automatically unnecessary). That aside, if you look just as far as the previous Talk-subject on this page you'll see that there is a general desire for the Royalty infobox to contain more than just the bare-bones minimum you suggest it should, so the argument seems somewhat futile on that count.

"How is that going to be indicated by this parameter?" I'll grant you my change is more of a bottom-up than a top-down approach and is not sufficient to deal with every case. We'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it.

"[...] because royalty is allegedly unimaginable [...]" I didn't say that is was. I said that when there is a standard, it's because it comes with the title and is not a personally granted honor like a knighthood. Which makes it different than such an honor. It comes with the position, like the seal of the president of the United States comes with the presidency. Which makes it the type of topical, biographical data that belongs in an infobox.

Think of it in terms of Wittgenstein's family resemblences, otherwise. It's the kind of symbol data that belongs in an infobox because that's the way infoboxes work in Wikipedia. Flags and COA's for countries, insignia for political positions and institutions, logo's for companies, rank insignia for military presonnel (often enough), standards and COA's for royalty.

Alright, long story short, we disagree. It's not up to you to decide unilaterally that the new parameters are unnecessary and must go, nor is it up to me to decide the opposite unilaterally either. So how do you want to proceed? Call a vote? Something else? -- BenTels (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It has now been two weeks since the last post in this discussion, so I am going to assume that there is no answer forthcoming and that we have decided to leave the template the way it is. -- BenTels (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't care anymore. Invent any parameter you like. Adding unneccessary parameters such as "Coat of arms" (even though people can have and usually have several coats of arms during their lifetime) and "Date of marriage" (even though some European royals have been known for having up to six spouses) will soon make this infobox ridiculous. If neccessary, I will vehemently oppose using such parameters in articles that I wish to see on the main page one day. If only you could make the infobox look better by moving silly new parameters somewhere else (such as merging them with the title, house or succession parameters). Anyway, best wishes, Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Surtsicna that the infobox should be kept as simple as possible. I do not see how a Coat of Arms/Standard belongs or adds anything to an infobox. If I look at the Prince of Orange standard in his infobox it doesn’t tell me anything, I don’t know what any of it means. A standard/coat of arms is the sort of thing that should be in the article itself where it can be properly explained what its meaning is. Elizabeth II#Titles, styles, honours and arms is a better and more informative way in my view than sticking a random flag in an infobox that the majority readers will have no clue about and is completely meaningless to them (myself included). - dwc lr (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

[...] the infobox should be kept as simple as possible. That means nothing. A maximally simple infobox is one that is empty.

Look, there's no point in rehashing the arguments at two-week intervals. Do you have a suggestion that will somehow satisfy both points of view? If so, please suggest it. Otherwise, let's leave it alone until somebody does. -- BenTels (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: let's remove the parameters you added and reinsert them only when (and if) you gain consensus for restoring them. It's fairly common to discuss changes prior to making them, not after they are made.

[...] the infobox should be kept as simple as possible. It may not mean anything to you, but to us it means that the infobox should contain only information which are neccessary in a biographical article. An image of a coat of arms is not neccessary in the infobox. As DWC LR said (and you ignored it), a coat of arms needs to be in the article where it can be explained what its meaning is. Simply putting a tiny, barely visible image into the infobox is useless and even misleading because coats of arms are changed frequently. The image is meaningless to readers. It tells them nothing. Surtsicna (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That suggestion obviously will not satisfy both points of view.

[...] only information which are neccessary in a biographical article. And on what basis do you decide what that includes and what it doesn't?

As for putting the COA elsewhere, there's nothing preventing putting it in an explanatory section as well. As stated before, practically everything in the infobox is somewhere else in the article as well. As for meaning: what do you do if there is no meaning other than (for example) "the guy with this flag on his car is the Prince of Orange"? And regarding size/visibility: call me crazy, but I thought the whole point of a hypermedia system like MediaWiki was so that you could have a small flag like that in something like an infobox, then click through to a bigger one. That's kind of the point of it all. -- BenTels (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying don’t have a coat of arms/standard anywhere in an article; surely it would be just as easy and make more sense to put a standard/coa in a section dedicated to “titles, styles, honours, coat of arms” where some descriptive information can be given on it. I can’t see why it is essential that it’s in the infobox. To me essential royal biographical information for an infobox is limited to things like name, title, birth/death dates, parents, spouse, royal house. - dwc lr (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, including the things you mention, are essential for the infobox. The entire infobox is non-essential -- it just adds a quick overview of the person-in-function (and therefore value) to the article. With (so far) 83 possible parameters for information on the "person-in-function", none of which are essential but all of which someone felt fit in the infobox.

Look, I've had enough. I think you're wrong, but my time is too valuable to waste on this kindergarten-level argument any further (especially since everybody wants to win and be absolutely right, instead of acting like a community member and try to reach a compromise that satisfies everybody). You want to revert the change, go ahead. I won't oppose you any longer. -- BenTels (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Buggy template

Can we clean this template because it's buggy stuff like not listing labels for certain parameters: Gunnora, Duchess of Normandy --Hutcher (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any specified attributes in that article's infobox which aren't shown on the template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Space needed

Can we have a space, please, between the person's age at time of death and the place of death? Otherwise we get something like this (for Diana, Princess of Wales): (aged 36)Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital

Thanks. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Not in the precise manner you suggested, but nonetheless fixed. DBD 15:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Issues

When was the list of issues changed so it was centered? Can it possibly be changed back?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to where it is centered? The example in the doc is not centered. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Some parts of the template were centered (at least to my eyes) but they appear to be normal now. As far as I know, I haven't done anything that would make any parameter look centered; when I tried to edit the template, I found no <center></center> tags. Few weeks later, it was normal again. Surtsicna (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, post a note here if this happens again. Centering tags aren't the only way to center content. For example, the default for table headings <th> is centered. Also, the CSS may specify centering as well. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you guys even do anything? It's still center. Check your example, Kamehameha I, Kamehameha III, and Kamehameha IV.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What browser are you using? They are not centered in Firefox on Ubuntu. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's centered for me too. I'm using Internet Explorer, but I know that when I use Firefox, the "issue" line and similar aspects of the template aren't centered anymore. I wonder what the issue is? Ruby2010 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will see if I can figure out what is going on as soon as I have access to a Windows machine. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Italic font

Why has the font used below the picture been changed?! It looks silly now =\ Monsieur le Duc (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, you should ask Spellcast. You can always explicitly add the italics. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol I know you can do that but I think it should be italic as default! Thanks for the advice chuck :) Monsieur le Duc (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from BomBom, 31 March 2011

Could someone please add the following code next to the {{{cor-type}}} parameter?

{{#switch:{{{cor-type}}} | britain = [[Coronation of the British monarch|Coronation]] | france = [[Coronation of the French monarch|Coronation]] | HRE = [[Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor|Coronation]] | hungary = [[Coronation of the Hungarian monarch|Coronation]] | japan = [[Enthronement of the Japanese Emperor|Enthronement]] | malaysia = [[Installation of the Malaysian Sovereign|Installation]] | norway = [[Royal coronations in Norway|Coronation]] | ottoman = [[Sword of Osman|Sword girding]] | poland = [[Royal coronations in Poland|Coronation]] | russia = [[Coronation of the Russian monarch|Coronation]] }}

BomBom (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain the change you are proposing? Has this been discussed anywhere or is this intended to be "uncontroversial"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Currently, all articles using the infobox automatically link to the Coronation article. I believe it makes more sense to have targeted links. For instance, an article about a British monarch should link to the Coronation of the British monarch article, rather than the more generic Coronation article. I don't think such a change is in any way controversial. Unless other contributors object to it, I will re-submit my edit request. Regards. --BomBom (talk) 16:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

{{#switch:{{{cor-type}}}
| britain  = [[Coronation of the British monarch|Coronation]]
| france   = [[Coronation of the French monarch|Coronation]]
| HRE      = [[Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor|Coronation]]
| hungary  = [[Coronation of the Hungarian monarch|Coronation]]
| japan    = [[Enthronement of the Japanese Emperor|Enthronement]]
| malaysia = [[Installation of the Malaysian Sovereign|Installation]]
| norway   = [[Royal coronations in Norway|Coronation]]
| ottoman  = [[Sword of Osman|Sword girding]]
| poland   = [[Royal coronations in Poland|Coronation]]
| russia   = [[Coronation of the Russian monarch|Coronation]]
| #default = {{{cor-type|[[Coronation]]}}}
}}

I think you should also include the #default so as to keep the same thing displayed when cor-type is not specified or does not match anything on the list. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Changes have been made. Can you update the docs. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. I just updated the template documentation. Thanks a lot. --BomBom (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed colour parameter

Maybe a color = parameter could be added that allows users to change the colour of the title bar. This is used on other infobox templates, so I'm sure it's possible. The option of choosing a colour would improve the anaesthetics of articles. For example, the Elizabeth II article could use a shade of yellow on their infobox, to fit with the picture. The Margrethe II article likewise could use a maroon colour.

This is just a proposal to consider. --Peter (Talk page) 23:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Field names not displaying

At Pōtatau Te Wherowhero the field names for "reign" through to "spouse" are not displaying. Nurg (talk) 02:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed it by removing blank fields. This is the same problem as reported above in section Buggy template. Nurg (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Coats of arms revisited

I'd like to restart the discussion about the inclusion of coats of arms. My rationale for adding this field is two-fold. First, it is a part of Template:Infobox noble, and royalty are part of the nobility - why is it that they are denied their CoAs? Second, for some royalty, coats were quite important, an example would be Polish kings elected from the ranks of Polish nobility (Stanisław August Poniatowski). It is somewhat jarring that one can visit articles about notable members of the Poniatowski family and potentially see their CoA everywhere but on the most famous of their members. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, if articles have a suitable picture, coats of arms should be placed somewhere else in the article, since infoboxes can get realllly long and unwieldy. I like how some articles have the heraldry in a horizontal template at the bottom - the template is laid out in a way which gives you the option to actually explain the heraldry somewhat (see Prince_charles#Arms).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

{{Infobox}} conversion

I've created a sandbox which converts this to an {{infobox}}. There's a lot of functionality to be tested: please help shake out the bugs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Images not displaying?

See, for instance, Akihito. I've swapped out the image file, but no joy, something is preventing the image from displaying, and the template's syntax is too convoluted for me to unravel. Can someone please take a look at it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The image in Akihito is displaying fine here. Declining, as it isn't obvious that there is anything wrong with the infobox. Try WP:VPT. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Under several browsers, it only displays for me when I'm logged off, not when I'm logged in. Since I've never seen this happen with any other infobox, I do believe there's something in the code causing the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The template generates the text "imgw" before the size parameter, i.e. "imgw 200px". A search on "imgw" shows that the only places on Wikipedia where "imgw" appears is in the infoboxes of royalty articles. What is the code "{{{imgw|}}}" supposed to do? (The thing is, unless you know there's a photo in the infobox, you won't necessarily realize that it's not displaying, which may make it difficult to how widespread the problem is or isn't.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

My feeling was that it meant "image width", and was intended as a synonym for image_size. Looking at it, the way it's implemented may cause problems with {{px}}. I've now made a change which should resole that: can you purge any pages which show problems for you and verify if they're fixed now? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the try, but things are the same: image displays when I'm logged out, but not when I'm logged in. If no one else is having this problem, perhaps it's something in my settings, or the skin I'm using? (Monobook) I'll play around a bit and see what might make it go away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you've set your default thumbnail size to something invalid? That's about the only setting I can think would cause problems, but you'd presumably notice that problem on other articles as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking more like something in my .CSS or .JS files. I'm not really proficient in temeplate syntax, but I copied this one over to my user space and played around with various changes to "imgw", without success - I still couldn't make the image appear when I'm logged on. It's not a huge problem, since it appears to be only true of the royalty infobox, just annoying. I'll continue mucking around, and if I figure out anything I'll report it here. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Please add the height parameter

Most of the infobox, for people have height parameter. In this persons is used usually only this infobox, and this should also include the height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.103.25 (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2012‎

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. I don't see that the height is important: it's not normally relevant to royals. Compare those people for whom the height is an important characteristic, such as {{infobox boxer}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Issue is not indented

In some cases, or many, the data for "issue =" would look better indented. On the other hand, some articles need a lot of room (see Alfonso XIII of Spain). But in Harold Harefoot, where there was only one offspring, the output looks buggy, especially as it immediately follows "Consort", where the name appears indented on the same line. Maybe a way to choose between indention and flush-left could be provided. Chris the speller ^yack 14:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Succession

How do we include a fourth succession and beyond?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Gender of Issue

How to distinguish between sons and daughters? Wish there is a "issue-type". Timmyshin (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

misleading verbage for "House" parameter

It says in the House parameter text: "The Houses, Dynasties, or Families to which the subject belonged/s (by birth, marriage or otherwise)..." that sounds, at least to me, that if one followed that then an article would have multiple houses, dynasties etc under that parameter. For clarities sake shouldn't it then be changed to singular form instead of plural? i.e. House, Dynasty, Family etc.—  dain- talk   21:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is true that it has proven to be somewhat misleading. Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

website parameter

I have seen at least one use of the parameter "website" (obviously ineffectually) in the Template. It may be something that we may wish to consider adding to the template. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"Successor" text not appearing for some infoboxes

The text "Successor" is not appearing for the first instance for some, but not all, of these infoboxes. For example, see David and Alexander the Great, where the first successor's name(s) appear below the predecessor, but the Successor label is not present. On the other hand, it's present for Albert the Bear and Alfonso IV of Portugal. I don't think I know enough about fiddling with the wikicode to try to diagnose this; can someone else look into it? —Dajagr (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. The template doesn't work if the "successor" parameter is duplicated or the "succession" parameter is excluded. DrKiernan (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

parameter for family members

Can we add a parameter for family members, such as siblings? Timmyshin (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 May 2013

Paul Gazman (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Please tag this template with {{Tfm/dated|page=Infobox monarch|otherpage=Infobox monarch|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13#Template:Infobox monarch|help=off}}

Please discuss the proposal at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13#Template:Infobox monarch. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Done by User:DrKiernan -- KTC (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Color

Can the purple coloring be changed to white? Most infoboxes are like Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox writer, Template:Infobox officeholder and etc. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It's deliberately purple because that is a colour strongly associated with royalty. DBD 09:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

That's really Euro-centric. Different cultures have different colors to represent royalty like yellow for the Hawaiians and Chinese. And this shade of purple isn't even the rich dark Tyrian purple that is associated with post-Roman Western royals. White is used by most infoboxes and having a color border seems tacky.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 July 2013

To change color to white instead of purple.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC) KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

This edit request cannot be performed because, judging from the section above this one, consensus is unclear. See point 2 of Wikipedia:Edit requests#Procedure: "Once it is clear there is consensus for the change ... put a template on the talk page" and point 4 of Wikipedia:Edit requests#General considerations "Administrators can only respond to requests which ... are already supported by a consensus of editors". DrKiernan (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It is kind of hard when only one editors wants to discuss and only one time at that and choose not to continue the argument. Just look at all the comments made on this page, almost everyone of them are left unanswered. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Era names and dates

Many (probably most) Chinese emperors have multiple era names. Right now the fields are "era name=" and "era date=". How do I enter a 2nd or 3rd era name, like "era name1=" or "era date2="? Timmyshin (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 July 2013

Add the field regnal name. Timmyshin (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@Timmyshin: Where would you like the field added? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Right above "posthumous name" would be fine... TIA if you are able to help! Timmyshin (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@Timmyshin: I have added it to the sandbox - please see Template:Infobox royalty/testcases. At the moment there is a line break between the "Regnal name" text and the value "regnal name". Is this what you want, or would you like these to be on the same line? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This would look perfect! Timmyshin (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Done. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 August 2013

Please add the links for temple name and posthumous name, since regnal name is linked while the other 2 aren't. 68.41.225.168 (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable request, so Done --Redrose64 (talk) 07:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 August 2013

please remove

{{Tfm/dated|page=Infobox royalty|otherpage=Infobox monarch|type=sidebar|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13#Template:Infobox monarch|help=off}}

from the top of the template, as the discussion has now closed.

Frietjes (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The word "issue"

I can't find a good definition on this word anywhere, so I have to ask it here: Are stepchildren and/or adopted children considered "issue"? Timmyshin (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

See Issue (legal); in short: no, because they are not lineal descendants. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So just to be sure, issue means "biological offspring" correct? I'm wondering whether it's possible to include a field in this template for adopted children. Timmyshin (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Pearsall, Judy, ed. (1999). The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Tenth ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 751. ISBN 0-19-860259-6.

issue n. 4 formal or Law children of one's own

(also given here) which implies that adopted children and stepchildren are not "issue". See also wikt:issue#Noun, item 4: Progeny; a child or children; offspring. In law, sometimes, in a general sense, all persons descended from a common ancestor; all lineal descendants. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Merging Infobox monarch here

Now that its been agreed that Template:Infobox monarch is going to be merged into this one, as of July 13, when and how does that happen? StarryGrandma (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 September 2013

This is the only Infobox I've seen where there is a list of information ("issue") that is left-justified. It looks like a mistake because all other lines of data are more or less centered. What is the logic behind this? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

probably to avoid wrapping the names which are typically long. we could indent it? Frietjes (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I raised this same issue in 2009 (see archive 1) but nobody replied. The old Template:Infobox monarch looked better in this regard.--Bill Reid | (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It's better as it is, if it can't alternate. If the names are short, there should be a way to toggle the justification, though. [Changed wording so you can get a response from the scriptor.] — LlywelynII 06:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 November 2013

Especially now that we're getting outside of Europe with this template, kindly just change the word "issue". There doesn't seem to be any good reason to use the archaic (and, in some cases, legally inappropriate) "issue" instead of "children" & it's confusing at least some of the editors above. Please give a field to toggle the plural (child/children) and we're good to go. — LlywelynII 06:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't agree that "children" can be substituted for "issue". Issue is both broader and narrower: Broader, in that it may be used to include all known descendants, living and dead ("she has issue" does not imply that "she" has any living children) narrower, in that the term does not include adoptees ("issue of the body" is what is really meant). Any substitution needs to be specific to the context in which the word is being used. Something's always lost when we dumb down. FactStraight (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 15 November 2013

Sorry to give you the work but then again, they really should have left {{Infobox Chinese emperor}} alone. Their names just don't work the same way. It looks like you're still missing fields for "given name" / "birth name" (no, it's not the same as "name" / "full name"), "ancestral name", and "clan name" (no, neither is the same as "name" or even, in this context, "surname"). There are also different short and long form posthumous names that aren't currently supported. (And of course, you can't link to the right articles from the template because then they might go to the wrong articles for various cultures.)

So, y'know, add those when you can.

Or... one way to make this work (and make life much easier on yourself) would be to just cut all except the most common (maybe just English common name, native-language common name, birth name, and regnal name) and then give us 10 or so name fields we can customize on our own. (In the meantime, at least 3 would probably sort most people's needs.) — LlywelynII 06:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

this should/will be handled as part of the merger, whenever that happens? Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Enumerated list input

I made a minor change to allow enumerated list input for the issue parameter in Diarmait Mac Murchada. let me know if there is a problem. if/when we switch this template to use {{infobox}}, this hack won't be needed any longer. Frietjes (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm against this becoming standard practice. If we numbered the children in the example used in the documentation (Henry VIII) then Mary I would be "1." but she isn't Henry VIII's first child. She was the third, fourth or fifth depending on how many of her dead siblings are counted as children, but listing all the children in the infobox to get around this problem strikes me as unnecessary. DrKiernan (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of relatively important infants

There is a bit of danger, I think in the "arbitrary" (quoting this "Infobox royalty/doc" page) removal of offspring from info boxes. "Arbitrary" may then be interpreted to inspire an editor specializing in action on royalty, to go around at random removing all infants from info boxes, without knowledge as to the possible historical importance of some such infants, or intentionally disregarding such importance arbitrarily. I see no advantage to any article in removing children from info boxes, as long as we have their names and years of birth and death. Thus, and citing WP:BOLD I am making a change to this "Infobox royalty/doc" in this regard, to safeguard against any "arbitrary" action which may do more harm than good. Respectfully --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC),

I have respectfully reverted your edit. The "rule" has not changed for almost five years, and nobody seems to have ever had a problem with it. Of course, you habitually have a problem with any edit I make, so it's not surprising that you are the first one to be "concerned" about it. The advantage is obvious; many monarchs had more than a dozen of children, most of whom died in infancy or early childhood. Such children are generally not notable. Anne, Queen of Great Britain, had five children (excluding stillbirths), yet only one is enough notable for an article on Wiki and inclusion in the infobox - others are listed in a special section. See also Isabella II of Spain; 5 of her 9 children are excluded from the infobox because they are not notable, having died as infants. If the infant is historically important for some reason, then he or she is probably notable enough for an article about him or her. I suppose an infant who was heir apparent would be notable, but even then only if he or she is the main topic of the source material. Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"Respectfully"? Then why get so personal? And why exaggerate in such an unfair manner? How is an approach like that relevant to topic, necessary or advantageous? I prefer not to get into that kind of belligerency with you anymore. Anyone else? SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Personal in what way? What did I exaggerate? Please don't comment on supposed "approaches" and tones and what not every time we discuss something; instead, try to address my points once in a while. Is it not true that infoboxes in articles about Queen Anne, Queen Isabella II and others do not list children who died as infants? Is it not true that nobody has ever complained about that? Is it not true that infants who died centuries ago are generally not notable? Surtsicna (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to refer neutral editors to this example of how the policy (as now reverted back to "arbitrary" etc.) can be unintentionally or intentionally misused. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, "neutral" to you means "those who side with me". There is nothing "arbitrary" about this /doc. If a child is notable (and you surely know what counts as notable), include his or her name. If not, don't include it. Surtsicna (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

To avoid any more sarcastic, uncivil slurs such as "Of course, you habitually have a problem with any edit I make, so it's not surprising that you are the first one to be 'concerned' about it" and "'neutral' to you means 'those who side with me'", I am asking, again, any neutral editors, i.e. without acrimony, to have say here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The last time you tried to accuse me of "sarcastic, uncivil slurs", administrators asked you not to waste their time by being immature. I hereby ask you again to refrain from that. Surtsicna (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Nickname

Quick question: where should nicknames be entered? Timmyshin (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

If notable, mention them in the lead of the article, as done at King Billy and Bloody Mary. DrKiernan (talk) 08:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

What if they are not so notable? Can we include such a field in the template? Timmyshin (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't add non-notable things to an infobox: it's a summary of the main facts only. DrKiernan (talk) 06:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 January 2014

Hi, something has gone wrong with the alignment of the "Issue" field in this template. The row heading "Issue" is incorrectly pushed into the right-hand column, and then their names appear in the left-hand column. Sometimes (see e.g. Alexander the Great) this seems to have a knock-on effect on subsequent rows. 86.160.219.163 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

it should be left-aligned (see Template talk:Infobox royalty#Issues and other sections above). if it's not left-aligned, we need to know which browser you are using. if you don't want it left-aligned, and if there is consensus for changing it, then we can certainly do so. Frietjes (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, please see here for what I see in three example articles. This is in IE11/Win7. Obviously this kind of messy layout was not intended, but whether it is a browser bug or template bug I'm not sure. If the former, it probably should be coded around in the template if at all possible. 86.160.219.163 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Label for the 'signature' field

As part of a recent TfD, it was requested to add the possibility to change the label for the 'signature' parameter, so that it can be changed to something else where it is appropriate (e.g. Tughra for Ottoman sultans). I am a template editor, but I think it's better to discuss the change before it's made, especially since I was involved in the TfD.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Support - Also, I checked out the test cases you made for that discussion, and I'd suggest that the title "Ottoman Sultan" be changed to the more full "Sultan of the Ottoman Empire", and all these be included under the parameter "succession" instead of "title" (in order to get the proper purple box seen in the first example on Template:Infobox royalty). This is all probably out of the scope of this particular discussion, but just a thought. Ithinkicahn (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• • Done, but the title will have to be removed manually, since it's mixed with other titles in the same parameter. If no-one is opposed to the change, I will make the edit myself in a couple of days.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Consort bug

"consort"=yes (above) produces 'Consort to' here (dependent upon "spouse", effected by "consort")

It doesn't. It stays as spouse whether consort is yes or no. --Varied Surf Igloo (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

According to the documentation (read it), if consort=yes, then Spouse: will change into Consort of:. Anyone with an advanced template syntax knowledge (which I'm not) could make the changes to make it working, not forgetting to give priority to spouse-type parameter, in my opinion. Anyway, the bug is reported (according documentation), I hope someone can make it work. --Varied Surf Igloo (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As this text is part of the documentation rather than the template, and does not apply, I've just removed it from there [1]. DrKiernan (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

'House' link

I propose editing the link to 'Royal House' on the Royalty template now that article has been merged with dynasty. Can any template editors/admin do this? Thanks. Sotakeit (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

where is the discussion that preceded the article merger? Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done It was a simple and sensible change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was here, but after over a month it only garnered one response - an agreement. Sotakeit (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Left-aligned "Issue"?!

See also #Edit request on 27 September 2013

Why is "Issue" the only parameter that is left-aligned? It should be indented like all of the other Infobox categories. It looks like a mistake and I've tried to fix it on several profiles before I realized it was an error in the Template Royalty. What possible reason is there that this one category is left-aligned so it is inconsistent with every other piece of information in the Infobox? Or should I replace it with another template that doesn't have this mistake? Newjerseyliz (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have the same question. If no one responds within a couple days, I am going to align it like normal. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking in the talk page archives, this appears to have been brought up by multiple editors over several years. I agree that this looks bad in many cases: it was the original reason for me looking at the template page as I thought it was a bug. However, there are arguments on both sides. Given that it has been the template's normal behavior for a number of years, any change should not change what is output by default. A solution that has been suggested in the past is to have another parameter which switches the alignment from what is displayed currently to being aligned the same as the other parameters. — Makyen (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add my complaint to this as well. As "issue" is displayed correctly in Template:Infobox monarch, I can see no reason why it should be different here. The argument that the names sometimes are long is very poor: they can be equally long in the monarch infobox, and if they're too long, just shorten them - there is no requirement that a person's full name is displayed in the infobox, especially not when it links to an article where the full name can be seen. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

done, although I will note that this is not the only left-aligned parameter (see |full name=, for example). Frietjes (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Frietjes, that looks much better. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A beltaed thanks from me as well. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well about the correction of "issue". Jaqeli (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggest "religion" line be before "occupation" and "signature" lines

Suggest "religion" line be before "occupation" and "signature" lines. Signatures generally appear at the end of documents and underscore items above. Having the religion after the signature line seems to place the royal's religion outside of their jurisdiction/personal acknowledgement. See Edward VI of England, for example.

Facts707 (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done updated template and /doc. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

Add parameter "education" as modern royalities do flaunt their educational qualifications to justify their royality. 103.21.127.79 (talk) 05:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree; leaving aside the pejorative language, many contemporary royals attend university. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Magic words

This template continues to use the template {{!}} which has been replaced by a magic word. It therefore breaks exported versions. Can this be fixed please. --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Where does it appear to do this? Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

All over the place, starting on line 6, if view-source isn't lying. 112.198.82.163 (talk) 07:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

All of those uses are of the magic word, though (which is how it's supposed to be). I don't see anywhere that it's calling Template:!. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that what looks like a template has now been implemented as a magic word. That seems to work fine on Wikipedia, so what is making a freshly imported version of the Template:Infobox royalty try to call the Template:!

The screen output when I try to load the template is like this: Template:! colspan=2 style="text-align: center" Template:!{{{title}}}{{{titletext}}}Template:! colspan=2 style="text-align: center" Template:![[File:{{{image}}}|{{{image_size}}} etc, etc. I'm running version 1.23.5 of mediawiki. Thanks, --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you're running an old version of MediaWiki, you don't have support for the {{!}} magic word. To work around this, you should create Template:! on your wiki that contains just the | character. Once you upgrade to 1.24, you can delete that template. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That worked perfectly, thank you very much. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Full name field.

See Hayam Wuruk

Data field is fully left-aligned with a newline before. Looks silly 112.198.82.74 (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That applies to many of the parameters; see the example in the documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, that makes it look much less silly. Not. 112.198.82.74 (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's slightly indented in today's new version, which I think looks better. DrKiernan (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Update to use infobox

I just updated the code to use {{infobox}}. this should results in little to no visible changes in the output. let me know if there are any problems. Frietjes (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 February 2015

Please have the code for the Issue field recognize "children" and "offspring" as well as "issue".

Template:Infobox monarch was merged with this template. Infobox monarch had problems with the Issue field over its lifetime. This was not a template watched by many editors and strange things happened. Originally it used Issue just as it is used here. In October 2007 a separate Children field was added. In June 2008, after discussion on the talk page and with a sarcastic edit summary, Issue was changed to Offspring, but the code still recognized the issue field. In March 2013 an editor took out the entire Offspring field after leaving a message on the talk page August 2012 to which no one responded. At that point the children (issue) disappeared from most of the articles using this template. I fixed the problem in May 2013 by adding code to recognize issue in the Children field. This history illustrates why it is a good idea to merge similar templates.

So I believe that out among the 2457 articles that currently use Infobox monarch are some that contain "offspring" or "children" fields rather than "issue". Thankyou.

StarryGrandma (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I used AWB to go through all 2457 transclusions in September. There were no uses of "offspring" or "children". DrKiernan (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just run through them again and there were 3 uses: all introduced in the last six months since the merge. DrKiernan (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that there are no problems left from the past, and for fixing new ones. Maybe a comment for Issue in the Blank syntax and an explanation of Issue in the Parameters section would help editors who have never seen the term issue used. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Coat of arms field

A field for "coat of arms" should be added, which should be useful for royalty and noblemen. Reigen (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Nationality

Hello, I strongly believe that a "nationality" parameter should be added here. Thank you so much for your attention Gtrbolivar (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Such a parameter would be a magnet for a range of nationalist, republican and POV disputes as well as being difficult to ascertain clearly in many cases where a royal has more than one potential nationality. The territorial designation, birthplace and/or residence are sufficient in all cases. DrKiernan (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible you can add ethnicity, I understand some edit-wars can come in, but I would like to add that for the Infobox of various rulers of the Mamluk Sultanate who may not share the same ethnic background and needed to be clear in their infobox. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 June 2015

There needs to be Ethnicity for Mamluk Sultans who have different Ethnic background and are needed to add in their infobox

Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm still opposed to this change. I think it's a magnet for disputes or bias or poorly-sourced insertions. If a person's ethnicity is important then it should be discussed in the article, but infoboxes work best when they are used solely for simple, undisputed facts. They're not well-adapted to complex issues that are almost certainly debatable. DrKiernan (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me, this isn't debatable, I'm talking about specifically Mamluk Sultans. It is un-fair that all royal families around the world share the same infobox. I'm thinking for a newer infobox for Mamluk Sultans, I also wanted to add their master, since they were slaves and not freeborn. I also wanted to add what regiment/corps they have served prior to ascending powers. The Mamluks were a unique people with a unique institution. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus since Mamluk articles are of low-quality and low-importance, just now I added an infobox to one of their rulers, if it not being done then there should be an infobox for the Mamluk rulers. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Adoptive children

Can a issue-type parameter be added to change the text of issue to Children or another similar phrase? Adoptive children can be considered children but aren't considered issue but are important in many non-European cultures like Polynesia and East Asia. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 July 2015

Can a issue-type parameter be added to allow for change in the text of Issue to Children or another similar phrase? Adoptive children can be considered children but aren't considered issue but are important in many non-European cultures like Polynesia and East Asia. KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR, since there were no objections, now implemented as |issue-type=. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Birth and death

Would anyone object to moving the birth and death details to above the marriage details, as shown in the sandbox? These seem to be important details that deserve to be given a higher place. DrKiernan (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No objection. FactStraight (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Parents

Can we merge father and mother as parents for output of |father= and |mother= ? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 20:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Embed support

Can you please approve this draft, which has support for the template to be used as an embeddable module? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Medieval Arab rulers

Any objection to creating parameters for medieval Arab/tribal royals? Or would it be best to have a separate infobox altogether? For the emirs of the Hamdanid, Mirdasid, Numayrid, Uqaylid, Jarrahid, Mazyadid and Marwanid dynasties (all from the 10th–12th centuries) there should be parameters for the emir's laqab instead of the non-applicable "regnal name", which caliphate whose suzerainty (even if nominal) they came under, and the tribe to which they belonged (not just their dynasty). They're might be other important parameters that I'm missing, but at least the aforementioned need to be included for such rulers. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Whether it is a modification to this infobox or a separate infobox, I support this. --Axiom292 (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 7 March 2017

Can we add additional repetitions for the succession fields? Template:Infobox officeholder, for example, goes up to 16. Here there are only 3, which is insufficient for individuals who reigned more than 3 times. That is not an uncommon occurrence for some Arab rulers whose articles I am currently working on. Right now I need 6. Axiom292 (talk) 03:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Axiom292:  Done I've added succession4 to succession9 to match the nine "spouse" fields. I'll update the documentation next. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 March 2017

Would it be possible to add a "coronation_place" parameter? A number of articles have the coronation place included and is indented using "br". Also, the link pointing to "royal coronations in Norway" needs to be updated by removing the word "royal". Thanks. Re5x (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you are trying to do, Re5x, but please stop changing "Cor-type" to the name of a country. Deb (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstood, check the documentation and you will see that it changes to a country-specific link. Replied on talk page. --Re5x (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Um... out of curiosity, are royalty usually coronated (sp?) in unusual places? For example, the coronation of British monarchs happens at Westminster Abbey. It doesn't really make sense to have every page say it. I'm not declining the request, just throwing out some thoughts. As for the Norway links: redirects are cheap. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That's in Britain but many monarchs of different countries are crowned in different places. Check the articles on different polish kings, where the places are often included, for example (Stanisław August Poniatowski vs Augustus III of Poland). As for the redirect, just want to make it similar to the other links in cor-type (i.e. "Coronations in Poland"-how they are linked right now in the info box- vs the old "Royal coronations in Poland") which were also moved years back to how they are now. Regards. --Re5x (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now, but very confusing to have "type" redirecting to a page like that instead of to the actual type of coronation. Why were so many of them not already linked like that? Deb (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Deb: I think it's because of the term "Britain", as the early coronations were "English"... Though the "British" coronation ultimately derives from the English rite, described in the history section... if others want to revert the pre-"British" monarchs back then feel free to I guess...--Re5x (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That was my main concern, yes. Deb (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: I have disabled the request because discussion is continuing and there doesn't seem to be any consensus yet on the original request — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 April 2017

Please replace | data67 = {{{spouse|}}} with {{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P26|{{{spouse|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}}}}. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please gain consensus for this change first. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Religion

Religion should only be given in the infobox when relevant to a person's notability. Whether religion is relevant, and which religion(s) to list in the infobox, should be determined at each individual article per unanimous ArbCom ruling and longstanding consensus at the style guideline. DrKay (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@DrKay: There's no consensus at this template to limit the use of religion parameter, although I accept that it would be sensible to do so, if agreement can be reached. ArbCom does not, and cannot make policy. The guideline is "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." That does not give you the right to fundamentally change the documentation for this infobox without achieving consensus to do so. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know how to create a RfC if discussion on the talk page should become deadlocked, but I strongly suggest that you make your case here first. In the meantime, you've made the same changes seven times in an edit-war against two other editors. Please stop: edit-warring is no way to build consensus. --RexxS (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Religion is a parameter that may or may not be included. Where known, it can be included exclusive of notability. The ArbCom infobox decision was narrow and did not address this template or the religion parameter at all -- it merely stands for the proposition that infobox inclusion (and, by extension the contents therein) are to be handled on a case-by case basis. And most certainly. not in an edit war over template documentation. Montanabw^(talk) 02:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, so you both agree with me and no-one has opposed. DrKay (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I obviously wasn't clear enough: I am opposed to you unilaterally changing the documentation. I've restored the previous version. --RexxS (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Your changes were opposed by me and others, both in edit summaries on the documentation template, and on your own talk page. I see that your behaviour is now being discussed at ANI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Cuius regio, eius religio makes religion very relevant to royalty, at least during the time frame this principle was operative. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Name

The description of the "name" parameter is incorrect. We don't use the "Most common English/Anglicised name". It should be "Most common name in English-language sources". So, Margrethe II not Margaret II; Juan Carlos I not John Charles I, etc. DrKay (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Small text

The <small> text in the description fields is incorrectly formatted, with the result that parts of the description field are hidden, reduced in size or contain an extraneous "s". All instances of "<small>s" should be replaced with the words "small text". DrKay (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Tracking cat

We need Category:Pages using infobox royalty with unknown parameters. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 11:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

We should add Module:Check for unknown parameters to this infobox too. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 12:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes:, would you like to help in this? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 07:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

added. Frietjes (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Royality as well as Saint

This has only now been bought to my notice when St Edmund was edited to remove his feast day from the info box. I see that if you are royalty you cannot have your feast day listed within the royalty info box. Cannot find any discussion about this but does it not negate the role of a info box as a source of knowledge at a glance. Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 06:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Use the embed module. DrKay (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

My what a quick response but I have no idea what you mean, sorry.Edmund Patrick – confer 06:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

You can embed parameters from Template:Infobox saint into the infobox on St Edmund's page by using the "module" parameter and the instructions at Template:Infobox royalty#Embedding other templates. DrKay (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, page stored in my tool box.Edmund Patrick – confer 07:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

After a bit of trial and error on sandbox still not working but I will try and get there.Edmund Patrick – confer 07:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I hadn't realised but the saint infobox is in the article: it's at the start of the veneration section. DrKay (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 July 2017

Add a "cause of death" field to the royalty infobox template? Snowsky Mountain (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please get consensus for this change before requesting an edit. There is discussion in the archive (Template talk:Infobox royalty/Archive 2#Entry for personal coat of arms or/and standard that seems to be against expansion ("The infobox should be kept as simple as possible" and "I agree ... that the infobox should be kept as simple as possible"). DrKay (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Besides, isn't it always "of a surfeit"? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Template add height

I want to add height in to this infobox same Infobox officeholder for show data in to google --Pitpisit (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox noble

As Template:Infobox royalty is the template after which the "noble template" was patterned and as this page is more frequently visited, I thought here would be the right place to discuss the order of parameters in infobox noble. Unlike other templates, including infobox royalty and infobox officeholder, the parameters "Birth", "Death" and "Burial" don't appear as the first three parts of personal details. Usually a person's date of birth, death and burial are the first things that can be seen in an info box, so I don't know why this one should be an exception. Keivan.f^Talk 21:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Burial date

Who cares? Is that really such an important biographical info that it needs to be in the infobox? I do not think so. Surtsicna (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

You could be right there. I note Template:Infobox person doesn't use it. DrKay (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I forgot the infobox even had this parameter, but Simonc30 has been dilligently adding burial dates in infoboxes for the past few days. In fact, that seems to be literally the only purpose of his or her user account. Surtsicna (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind removing it, DrKay? Simonc30 is not responding. Surtsicna (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Fine if you want to remove it altogether - I've only been adding it in where it's been missing because some pages have already featured it and some haven't. Thought it would be better to have either them all mentioning it where the information is available or none of them mentioning it rather than ad-hoc. And also, it's not the sole purpose for my account - in fact if you look, you will see that I have had an account for a few years now and I have been working on projects, for example MPs and Acts of Parliament. Simonc30 (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I apologize sincerely! I did not pay much attention to your contributions. I understand your point. It seems that we agree then that the parameter is extraneous. Surtsicna (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it from the documentation but not yet from the template syntax itself, because of examples like Prince Francis of Teck, where there are two dates given. Removing the parameter from the template will only remove one of the dates, leaving the other to be misleading and odd. DrKay (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Style/honorific prefix?

I'm wondering why styles are generally employed in infoboxes for clergy (see for instance His Eminence Robert Sarah), but not for royalties? As a background, I guess this archived discussion is related to my question. My question applies also to popes (see for intance Pope Francis). Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Mother's name

Can we have a guideline on using a person's mother's maiden or birth name in the infobox if that name is different from her article title? -Acjelen (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The main reason for inclusion is to provide the reader with genealogical information, so it does makes sense for it to be the maiden/birth name. This matches the practice in most ancestral tables and family trees. DrKay (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree: it can be assumed to be more confusing to a reader to find the maiden name in the infobox, which I think is meant to provide quick information at a glance, and thus to be encumbered by the question of whether or not the mother was married when the offspring was born. In the case of Prince Harry, his mother became his mother when he was born, not when she got married, and her name was then whatever is was when he was born. The same general principle should apply to all info boxes where genealogy, in my opinion, is less important that readily available & accurate info. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Native name

The documentation needs to mention the native name syntax:

• native_lang1
• native_lang1_name1
• native_lang2
• native_lang2_name1
• native_lang3
• native_lang3_name1
• native_lang4
• native_lang4_name1
• native_lang5
• native_lang5_name1

Currently, the documentation makes no mention of these parameters, which are nevertheless supported by the template and used on pages such as Alexander the Great etc. Kidburla (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I came to suggest the same thing, the infobox really neads it. CherryPie94 (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Multiple royal names

Would it be possible for the |regnal name= have the ability to be pluralized to |regnal names=, else create multiple regnal names (|regnal name=, |regnal name1=, etc.)? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

how to enlarge the template?

sorry guys for asking a sort of beginner's question: sometimes you would want to add further informations to it because you may want to know at first glance about other really important family-members... e.g. with Margaret of Austria, Duchess of Savoy you want to be informed about two other personalities who made her effectively important, that is

| brother =Philip the Handsome
| nephew =Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

but the template won't show this... what can be done please? thanks! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@HilmarHansWerner Yeah, this template doesn't have those fields like infobox for persons , it really needs a field for relatives as they can be notable with articles on their own Ohsin (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree. Royalty is obviously going to be related to a vast number of other royalty, and they're all going to have articles of their own. Such parameters are useless when every relative is notable. It is better to restrict it to the existing relatives parameters of children, parents, spouse and house, which is more than sufficient already. DrKay (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I support DrKay's comment above. This infobox template already has enough parameters and should not be expanded further. -- Blairall (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

But thinking of polygamous royal houses where male members define lineage many female members don't have a place in tree and are defined by relation to their male brothers or uncles who are many times not notable at all. I think it'd be useful addition if used properly to define close family separate from extended family. Ohsin (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean? In a polygamous royal house female members would still have a tree but only to their biological relatives. How would they be defined by their relation to someone not notable? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

What I mean is as far as the argument of too much notability is concerned, that is not always the case, especially to less empowered members in large families. Since there is such an overlap between infobox royals and persons why not have such field? One could use the infobox person and embed fields from infobox royal as well but it is a long drawn way and doesn't have the visually distinguishing purple band. Ohsin (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@DrKay "Royalty is obviously going to be related to a vast number of other royalty" This is not the case with commoner marrying into royalty. Ohsin (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

One solution would be to expand the led or opening paragraph to include the relationships missing from the infobox. In the case of Margaret of Austria, we could make clear who her brother was and that she acted as guardian to his children, including the future Emperor Charles V, following his death. Acjelen (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

That is how I have seen it done so far. Having extra field would be visually informative like 'Google Knowledge Graph' which is often unreliable. This is what is rendered for Margaret of Austria when googled showing siblings.Ohsin (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Additional variable needed

A "honorific_prefix" would be at hand. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 June 2018

(First, I should disclose that I came here because of what was pointed out to me by User:Underbar dk here.)

Please remove the "religion =" parameter per Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 21#Religion in officeholder infoboxes, which made even more explicit the already explicit statement that the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes applied to all derivative infoboxes except those related to religious leaders.

Yes, some royalty (usually only reigning monarchs, though) are religious leaders, but only as a secondary function of their roles as monarchs, and in several such instances these are not exclusive (for example, virtually all Japanese living and historical royalty have been "Buddhist" as well as "Shinto"). Elizabeth II is undoubtedly the most-watched page with this template currently transcluded, and does not make use of this parameter presumably for the reason that it is not useful and that saying she is a member of "the Church of England but not the Church of Scotland" would contradict the sourced content in the article body.

I know providing this much explanation for the requested edit might give the impression that the edit is controversial, but actually it's just meant to demonstrate how it's not controversial.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

We've discussed this before in Template talk:Infobox royalty/Archive 2#Religion, and at least at that time there was no consensus for this change. The fact that many royals are also ex officio church leaders (State Shinto in Japan, or the Queen of England and the Anglican Church) makes this a relevant field, as does the (long-past but still notable) principle of cuius regio, eius religio. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Since this apparently is controversial I'll withdraw my request, but FWIW Japan has had royals for thousands of years, with over 120 "canonical" reigning emperors, while "State Shinto in Japan" was only a thing for a few decades even during which time all of Japan's imperial family were also, AFAIK, practicing Buddhists, and even the example "the Queen of England and the Anglican Church" is problematic because our article on her doesn't make use of this parameter for the reason I outlined above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Wait: can we at least edit the documentation to discourage the use of the parameter when the content is irrelevant, unsourced, or controversial? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

All that said, "no consensus" for a page-specific implementation of a change that had overwhelming consensus elsewhere and implicitly applied to this page in those discussions is pretty weak. Perhaps a new RFC should be held as to whether to remove the parameter from this particular template. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

children described as issue

hi. I noticed a revert that attempted to replace issue with children, or heirs on this article Prince_William,_Duke_of_Cambridge after a look I also agree, we shouldnt be using words that are no longer used amongst the general readership, it seems strange to add children under an issue header. I had to google it to find out what it meant and it did'nt return many results. I propose or request that we should change this parameter to children. Thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Children and issue are not synonymous. Issue refers to biological children only. Surtsicna (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

thanks Surtsicna. All William's children are biological and they are commonly refered to as his children. What benefit do we see from including a parameter that is no longer in general use in the English language? Issue is an old term related to inheritance ? Govindaharihari (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This infobox was not designed to be used only in the article about William. It is used in over 15,000 articles. Surtsicna (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

the fact that it is wrong and used in many articles in a wrong way is a great excuse to change it. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not wrong though. It is perfectly correct. Whether it is optimal is debatable. Surtsicna (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps having an alternate field "children" might make the template better for the reader. MilborneOne (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

support for that. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

There's a parameter for that already: 'issue-type = Children'. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Celia Homeford I tried that, is it correct? Govindaharihari (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Govindaharihari That parameter is used in thousands of articles. I think it's not right to make William and Catherine an exception. You could probably request a general change in the template, or leave it as it is. Keivan.f^Talk 12:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

What about variable "honorific_prefix"?

And possibly "honorific_suffix". Recurrent elsewhere in comparable infoboxes. Not less relevant here. Anyone? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)