Template talk:Infobox British royalty styles

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page in test stage[edit]

Please don't use this page for the moment. It is a test. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The thin red line[edit]

Is there any way to get the red line at the right to be continued round to form a border? Astrotrain 16:26, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia infoboxes generally use borders. (A box by definition needs some border to be a box.) Is there any other colour you would like instead? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move request[edit]

I think this should be moved to something like Template:Infobox monarchstyles. This infobox should be used for more than just British monarchs; it should also be used for Kings, Queens, Emperors, Empresses, Grand Dukes, etc. of all countries. --Matjlav(talk) 22:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Various monarchies have their own temp boxes. The reason was simple. Rather than constantly including images manually in each individual box, creating one unique to a set of country's monarchs meant
  1. the image didn't have to be added in every time as it was already in place;
  2. it avoided individual boxes having squabbles over images, that could see someone use a different image in the Queen Victoria box than the Charles II box, the Louis XIV box and the Louis XVI box. So all boxes would have a unity of design, eg. all British monarchs use the Crown of St. Edward; all Austrian boxes use the Austrian crown, all Italian boxes (as their was no actual Italian crown) use the coat of arms of the House of Savoy.
There is a generic one also created that can be used where for example only one monarch existed as opposed to a set. (Sorry I meant to pull them all together. I'm too tired now but I'll do them maybe tomorrow. In general they all follow the same rule infobox <statename>king(or k)styles.) king/k was used simply because it is shorter than monarch to type when each box was being added into a page and is meant to cover king or queen. FearÉIREANN\(caint)

This box necessary?[edit]

Well-intentioned as it may be, I'm not sure I agree as to whether the addition of this box to each and every relevant article is a positively Good Thing™. IMO it may clutter up the layout of some royal bios, which are already strained due to misc royal family infoboxes. I therefore took the liberty of removing the box from Harald V of Norway (also, the styling of the King is given in the first paragraph anyway). --Wernher 08:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't much care for this template (specifically for the British monarchs). It is basically the same on every page (His Majesty, Your Majesty...) It clutters up pages where there are two of them (such as William III of England), and it doesn't really add much information. Everything anyone would want to know is already at Style of the British Sovereign, just put a link to that page in each article. --JW1805 20:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is necessary. It sums up information, as templates do. It was decided to use it to end edit wars between those who wanted to start off articles with His Majesty . . . His Holiness . . . and those that did not. It is the recommended approach on MoS. If it has been deleted it will simply be reinserted as per the agreement to stop the edit war. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I wasn't aware of previous controversies related to this. Could you point me to where this was discussed? I do note, however, that this template is not present on all the monarch articles. Note that William III has 2 (England and Scotland), while James VI doesn't have any (should have 2). Queen Anne has 1 (UK), but shouldn't she also have 2 additional ones for England and Scotland as separate kingdoms? And I don't think any of the early Kings of England have one. --JW1805 21:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the formatting of the name is inconsistent. Note:
    • "King George VI of the United Kingdom"
    • "Queen Victoria" (why no "of ___" or "as ___"?)
    • "Mary II as Queen of England" (why not "Queen Mary II of England")
    • "King Henry VIII of England and Ireland" (why aren't there two separate ones for England and Ireland, they were separate kingdoms like England and Scotland?)
    • "William as King of Scotland" (why not "William II..."?)
    • Also, what about the Electorate of Hanover?
    • "King George I of the Great Britain" (I don't know what that's all about...) --JW1805 21:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll have to dig back a couple of months. I forget what the debate page was called. The broad issue was discussed a couple of times. One debate sunk to a verbal brawl. These boxes were suggested as a compromise in the last debate by me and (to my amazement) got around 90+% support, with the extremists on both sides both endorsing it as the solution. As one guy wrote to me "what the hell happened? How has the worst revert war in WP history just stopped and everyone agreed on what to do. Jesus."

I think actually they should be used everywhere for one reason: people still turn up and add in styles, so it becomes His Majesty King Edward VII of the United Kingdom . . . at the start of articles. I've lot count of the number of times where either being able say "see that template. It covers that so please don't add in styles that way" and you'd get an "oh. I didn't realise" response. Prior to the templates, articles would have revert wars involving 2,3,4,5 or more people putting in or taking out styles at the start.

Some monarchs have more than one simply because they had different styles. William III for example was Your Majesty as King of England, Your Grace as King of Scotland. Franz Josef was Your Imperial Majesty as Austrian emperor and Your Apostolic Majesty as King of Hungary. All monarchs from 1603 to 1707 in Britain should have 2 boxes. Austrian monarchs from 1867 should have two. Most monarchs should simply have one. In a large article they take up minimal space but summerise the info and can be used to stop put them in/take them out nasty edit wars we had on styles before.

I'll check to see if everyone has been using them correctly. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good compromise arrangement given the whole arguments over styles in the royal articles. I think the HRH one can cause problems with regards to clutter in some of the smaller articles, but the benefits of the boxes far outweigh any presentational concerns. Astrotrain 20:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting[edit]

I was trying out a different format, but I didn't realize that there is some sort of edit war going on? My opinion is that the formatting should be more consistent with other infoboxes.--JW1805 21:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Different versions:[reply]

  1. Original version: [1] - plumb heading, red line on left side.
  2. Another version: [2] (basically same as [3]) - modify #1 to conform to style standards.
  3. My version: [4] - A more compact version. Light blue color, but I don't have a strong preference....it could use the plumb.

Just be careful in changing the overall look. This was one of those edit wars (jesus it was rough) where every nuance could be seen by one side or the other as more favourite to the "other side". That is why it is probably best to leave all the boxes with the agreed format. This was one of those rows where even the slightest nuance regularly triggered it off again. So everyone discussed (1) should there be an infobox, once agreed (2) what should be in it, (3) how should it look. It was important to keep all sides on board and all sides agreed on that look, size and set of contents. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why the red line was chosen was because many of those involved in the debate had over the weeks expressed a liking for the look of the boxes used in papal pages (which are left lined) while many expressed what was quite bluntly detestation of the so-called "standard" look. Discussions on talk pages pretty much said that the box should be based on the papal box and absolutely avoid the "standard" look, which many are intent on getting binned because they see it as ugly and dull. The colour scheme is also deliberately chosen because most colours are associated with one or other monarchy. Purple is a royal and ecclesiastical colour and so about the only colour that can be used for royalty worldwide, clergy and other heads of state. It is the best "offensive to novbody/POV to nobody" colour. Other colours tend to be associated with the British royals, or the Italians, or the Aragonese, or the Danish, or the Norwegian, etc etc. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

The image in this template, Image:Kingcrown.jpg, has had its copyright status disputed; see Image talk:Kingcrown.jpg. It's acceptable as fair use, but fair use images cannot appear in templates. I've replaced it with Image:Edward's crown PD.jpg as a temporary measure until a proper free image can be found. If you can find such an image, then please replace it. Otherwise, please do not revert to the old version. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it with the same image with a clean white background, still free. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion about the justification for these boxes[edit]

I removed some of these boxes from non-English royalty a couple of days ago, as I found them both unnecessary, superfluous, linguistically dubious and cluttering the pages. However, the creator of them, User:Jtdirl, took offence and wrote a message about it on my user page. I've just responded, and as I suspect that more people may have views about these style boxes, I decided to add our friendly conversation here. Best regards. Thomas Blomberg 16:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the style boxes? If you had checked your facts, which you clearly did not, you'd know that

  1. They are all factually correct;
  2. The were all inserted as part of a project on styles to stop being starting articles with styles;
  3. The are the agreed form and covered in the MoS;
  4. All are edited to match any local unique styles.

They are not British styles but royal styles used worldwide. They use a British template simply because it was originally intended to create a set of country-specific templates but in the case of queens and empresses consort it was decided that that was not needed, so the original plan was abandoned and the first country-specific template created, for British queens consort, used as a general one on all consort pages.

If you had checked with any of the people involved in the project, or bothered to ask anyone, you would have found that out. Instead you unilaterally deleted factually accurate templates inserted under MoS rules. The deletions have all been reverted. If you don't know what you are doing, don't do it. Check with people first. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them because I find it both irrelevant and totally wrong to add boxes about how to address a royalty in English who isn't English. There are already several articles in Wikipedia about how to address royalty (Style (manner of address), Royal and noble styles, Title, Majesty, Royal Highness and Forms of Address in the United Kingdom), and I think a link to one of those articles is a lot more useful for those who feel an urgent need to find out how he or she should address Oscar I of Sweden in English, if meeting him in Heaven (as he's been dead since 1859), although he never spoke English. The English title is already abbreviated in the royal family box for each person, and it is also spelled out in full in the second sentence of each article, so why have it repeated yet a third time in a special style box?
If these boxes are factually correct or not, isn't really important. If someone starts adding boxes about everybody's weight and height, should those remain just because the information is correct? Also, I question the correctness of some of the boxes. Let's take Queen Silvia of Sweden of Sweden, for instance. While it's correct that her title in English is "Her Majesty" (which is noted twice in the article), and it's also appropriate to address her "Your Majesty", I think you would get a very strange look from her if you used the very British "Ma'am". I also happened to notice that her coat of arms are wrong. You have inserted the large Coat of Arms of Sweden (also already displayed in the article, as it's part of the totally appropriate royal family info-box), but she actually has her own, totally different coat of arms (the same is true of her husband: he also has his personal coat of arms, which are not the large Coat of Arms of Sweden).
Regarding you reference to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, I can't find anything in MoS about these boxes, which are so randomly added to royalty articles. If they should be used, they should be used consistently, for every royal person, living or dead. They should also be used for every pope, every American president (and Irish), every prime minister, every high court judge, etc., etc. What makes titles of royalties so special?
As you are the originator of these boxes, I can understand that you feel protective about them, but I can't help feeling - like so many others, judging from the discussion (Template talk:Infobox UKkingstyles) - that they are additional clutter to the royalty pages, especially - as I've already pointed out - as the matter of style is already covered in the second sentence of every article. And the notion that everybody should ask people for permission before doing changes in Wikipedia articles, is definitely not generally accepted in the Wikipedia community. We all find our "babies" changed and altered. We can argue and discuss it, but as long as it's not vandalism, but coming from a position of trying to improve the articles, we have to live with it.
However, the existence or non existence of these boxes is not of very big significance to me, so I won't start an edit war with you about them. I'll leave that to others, as I'm sure I will not be the last person to be removing these (in my mind) irrelevant boxes. Good luck. Thomas Blomberg 16:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I'll add this conversation to the talk page, as I think others should be able to read it as well.

Sir or Sire[edit]

The infoboxes appear strange when applied to non-British royals and generally not well adapted. The fact that articles on dead royals include the spoken style proves this. The alternative spoken styles are even more out of place. If they are ment as a guidline for people on how to adress the mentioned person if they meet them. It would be better to mention the local custom in stead of imposing the british custom on all monarchies. I think many monarchs in the world (maybe not in Europe) would take offence if referred to as Sir or Ma'am. If they are not ment as such a guidline I don't see any reason why they should be included. In addition I wonder what the correct alternative spoken style for a King is, as Christian X of Denmark is adressed Sire but Frederick IX of Denmark is adressed Sir. Not a big question as nobody is able to adress them as such anyway, but stil an inconsistency. I would also like to add that it is common to adress a royal direcly by referring to him/her by his/her title such as The Prince. In Norway at least this is common while Sir is only used by visiting British people. Inge 20:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sire was the old version used worldwide. Sir is the modern version. The problem is that some users are using the wrong templates, or have created new templates using the old wording. They are all being fixed, both in terms of design, layout and wording. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the swift reply. I would like it to be noted that Sire and Sir are not used worldwide. They are used in the English language. The reason I am pushing this is that there isn't even an equivalent in Scandinavia at least. Maybe the old use of Sire/My Lord could be translated as Herre, but Sir can not be translated. Herre is in addition no longer in common use. In Norway one use of Herre still provails in the reply to the King: ..., Herre Konge (..., Lord King) when he adresses a military unit.
Do you have any suggestions on how to solve some of my other comments above? I believe the inclusion of local styles would at least be fitting and that spoken styles should be omitted in articles concerning deceased royals. Inge 22:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under Wikipedia rules it is the form of address used by English speakers (not necessary an English language version) that is used in articles. As English users refer to the King of Norway as "Sir" when addressing him, it is correct to use "Sir" and not the native language alternative in the box, unless the native language version is used in English. But there is no problem I would think it adding in native language versions, perhaps in a complimentary box on the page. It is important to continue to use the spoken version so that people will know what the spoken version was. For example, Scottish monarchs were called "Your Grace". English monarchs before Henry VIII were called "Your Highness" as were certain members of the British royal family until 1917 when the form was abolished. It is also worth revealing what the spoken version was for defunct monarchies in Poland, or Russia, or Austria, etc.
The styles boxes were first created as a compromise to stop edit wars between those who wanted to use styles (and frequently overused them), eg starting articles "His Majesty King XYZ of A" with endless "HRH the Prince of X is active in such and such, while Her Grand Ducal Highness is famous for . . .", and those who removed any mention whatsoever of styles, even when stating what they were. We now face the task of tweeking them for local usage. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not include local styles in the box as well as English of course. I think two boxes would be a bit too much for this purpose. Inge 23:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too alkward. Some pages would need extra text, others wouldn't. You'd end up with complicated problems over what is in what box, some boxes potentially massive, possible gaps over commands that would be used in some boxes but not in others. It would be far cleaner to keep the existing boxes as they are (meaning they are all the same size) and have a copy version for native language alternatives. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_British_royalty_styles&oldid=1057364653"