Template talk:House of Glücksburg (Greece)
|WikiProject Greece||(Rated Template-class)|
Should "Princess Mary" be changed to "Princess Marie"? Someone from katoufs.com has written Wikipedia suggesting that it should; I'm not sure which according to naming conventions would be proper. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say Marie; one rarely hears the name Mary for non-British royals. Craigy (talk) 03:39, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Female name reuse
We're in a massive foulup here due to the re-use of female names in the Greek branch of the Oldenburg/Glucksburgs (there are two Olgas and three Alexandras); the article for Prince Michael of Greece contains one of each, and when they were linked, they both linked to the wrong person. Fervent and incautious editing and renaming by two editors whom I won't name, and a tie-in to the massive dust-up going on over Russian consorts, has exacerbated the problem. Not sure what the right fix is, I'm trying to research Wikipedia policy on this at the moment. Alexandra I was married to a Russian Grand Duke, and Alexandra II was the consort to the King of Yugoslavia, so the applicable set of policies is wonderfully complicated. Noel (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Discussion (and comments) moved to Talk:Princess Alexandra of Greece.
This template is overwhelming some of the pages it's being put on (see, for instance, Alexandra Yurievna), for a couple of reasons.
- The text size chosen for the header, etc, is a little too much. It overwhelms everything else (especially on smaller screens). I'm going to scale it down a little bit.
- The box is getting longer and longer because people have started adding entries for people other than sovereigns and their children (e.g. Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark). I understand that some of these people are significant figures (e.g. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh), but how can we draw any line, other than the "sovereigns and their children" one? If we add all the children of all the younger siblings who never reigned, this thing is gonna get really huge. Not that I object to having the information on the children of the siblings; to the contrary, I think it would be good to have that somewhere - but this box isn't the right place for it. Let's put it somewhere else (doesn't someone have technology for doing family trees for use on Wikipedia?), and put a link to it in this template. Noel (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree, most of the dyansty templates are getting a bit out of hand. I started a few by simply copying and modifying existant ones for other houses. What would be great is if we could have an "expand" link next to each sovereign which would work exactly how the show/hide Table of Contents does. I've had a go at using some code to try and put it in the article but I think we need access to a .css/js subpage before it could happen (and I'm not an expert with html anyway). If anyone knows any Wikieditors that are good with html and xsl codes, then perhaps we could ask if they can implement the code if it's possible (without totally revamping Wikipedia's .css rules of course). Craigy (talk) 05:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- The "expand" button is a nice idea, but if it's too difficult technically, do you have any problem with a simple link to a page like House of Oldenburg (Glucksburg-Greece) or List of members of the House of Oldenburg (Glucksburg-Greece) (or whatever name along those lines people like best, I don't have a particular preference)? Noel (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
"The House of Oldenburg (Glucksburg-Greece)" is in my eyes an unnecessarily complex and mixed wording. In other words, pure crap. As header, something like Royal House of Greece would be much better. Will we have a rebellion of extreme-republican Greeks here if such is to come into use? Arrigo 00:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- I have no idea why it's named the way it is (it was named that when I arrived on the scene, and I wasn't tempted to change it), and I have no objection to changing it to something simpler; as I said, I don't have any particular strong preference. I don't know if it will cause problems - see Talk:Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark for an example of someone getting cranky on basically this topic. If we do rename it, we'll have to leave a redirect here for a while; I don't think it's worth editing every page that links to it just to update the template name. Noel (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- I admit the template title isn't worded perfectly, but because it's a template and just an addition to a page, it doesn't need to be. I for one am against removing the template altogether and suggest a compromise on who should and shouldn't be placed in it. If a user feel's the need to remove the template from all the pages it's on, I suggest, for consistency, they also start a discussion at other pages where similar templates are located. Craigy (talk) 08:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Huh? I don't know of anyone who's suggesting removing the template altogether - I'm certainly not. When I spoke (above) of "a simple link to a page" I just meant that that link would appear in this template (which all pages would continue to hold) in addition to the basic list of monarchs, etc. And we'd put the more obscure information in that linked page, instead of cramming it all into the template.
- And your point about the template name is of course quite true. But now that I look more carefully, Arrigo spoke of the "header"; I was confused because he [[ ]]'d it. Noel (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I added this image to the template. I have secured the proper permissions to use this image.Argos'Dad 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
A request for comments which may impact this template has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC on style in royal family templates. You are welcome to comment there. Fram (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)