Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Style War proposed solution

message: :I, for one, think it's a fine idea. Pointedly not discussing layout, content and colorscheme, the idea of an infobox (presumably instead of using the style in the article) is a good one. So, uh... support. --User:Jenmoa 05:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments from [[Talk:Pope Benedict XVI]]

message: * This solution has my whole-hearted support. It is simple yet elegant, in complete accord to the style of the article(s). Pete 05:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from [[Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom]]

message: :This is a perfect solution. We can show what styles are used when, since depending on the situation is depending on what style you use. Also, I am not sure where we can place the infoboxes at, but I am sure that others will love this idea as much as I do. A Barnstar for you!  Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From [[User talk:Zscout370]]'s page

message: I suggest we allow other comments to come in over the next few days on the principle of using infoboxes. We can then deal with the practicalities (design, location) if there is clear agreement on using infoboxes. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From here

message: *I like it; count me as a support vote. However, I'd like to see the aesthetics of it altered a bit after adoption. -- Essjay ·   Talk 04:28, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
*I like the principle too. My own main objection is that the current draft box is far more prominent than the matter deserves. A small box with normal-size type and no loud colors seems better to me. Bill 11:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More comments

message: Seeing as the response to this idea has been universally positive, perhaps some specifics should begin to be discussed.  Most notably - placement.  Where in the article should these boxes be placed?  Many monarchs already have infoboxes that go at the top of the article. john k 04:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in the case of a British monarch, I think a decent place would be within the royal house templates. That is, place the style information along with information about children and the other relations. There's already a gigantic template on the right side of the article, a little more wouldn't hurt–and it wouldn't interefore with the existing flow and layout. Mackensen (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: To be honest I'd be against that for a couple of reasons:
# The practicalities:
## The royal house template is currently used for all members of that House. Adding in a style bit as a result could not be made specific to a certain office holder since an add-in would appear on all pages with that template.
## On at least two occasions in Britain alone, styles were changed midway through a royal house — in 1509 and in 1917. A separate box for the individual royals who underwent the change could accomodate that change cleanly. It would be more complex to do it as part of an already huge template, and as I have mentioned, it would then appear on all pages using that template, while one only wants it to appear in the relevant one.
# This proposal is aimed at producing a win-win situation for both the pro- and anti-styles side. Removing styles and including them as a small part of an already large template would, IMHO, be unlikely to satisfy the pro-styles argument. Getting an infobox focusing only on styles, is more likely to. They may not be happy to lose styles at the start of articles, but at least they are there still in a strong visual presence on the issue with a separate infobox. (Similarly the anti-styles side may not be happy that they would still be in articles, but at least they would not be used at the start.) 
I don't think putting the styles information into a large already-existing template would live up to the win-win senario I am trying to achieve for both sides. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there are concerns by users of putting in styles or not, how about leaving styles in for articles about royals who are still alive? And taking the styles out of royals who have passed away and using the template, would that satisfy demands? Gryffindor 15:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest that the information be presented, not in a template, but in a table at the bottom of the person's page. A template form would not be useful given the more important household templates on most royality pages, or other infoboxes for PMs and Presidents etc. Astrotrain 16:36, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
===Alternative suggestion for location===
Perhaps the most logical location might be at the point in the article where an office-holder assumed the office. That usually is at least half way down the page, so it would be neither too prominent nor lost at the bottom (where I think it might not satisfy the demands of some pro-style activists). FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement 

message: Perhaps the most logical location might be at the point in the article where an office-holder assumed the office. That usually is at least half way down the page, so it would be neither too prominent nor lost at the bottom (where I think it might not satisfy the demands of some pro-style activists). FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative suggestion for location

message: I reviewed all the colours on offer. I picked purple because
# I did not see it being used anywhere else. 
# Purple is a colour identified with those most strongly associated with styles, ie, royalty and the Church, so it seemed a natural colour to use for styles.
# The fear among supporters of styles was that they would be buried in the text. I created a box that would be noticed to meet their objections, while the fact that the styles were not being used in texts would meet the objections of those unhappy at their usage in texts. 
Neutrality had an interesting suggestion, that different colours be used in different articles. On balance however I think that would be inadvisable. Using a standard layout and colour means that readers of articles the moment they see them know what they are because they all look alike. The moment you see a purple box you know "oh, that is the style of this person" so it aids clarity while avoiding complexity. I think simplicity of design is preferable to complexity. 
One side issue was the inclusion of a symbol of the office the person held. I think that adds a visual impact that avoids simply yet another box of text. As we are an encyclopædia we need a mixture of simplicity, clearness of design and also images to minimise over reliance on text alone. In addition, all the offices have a unique symbol: almost all monarchies have crowns, even if they no longer wear them. Presidents have presidential standards, etc. Wikipedia already has those images on here, so for visual distinctiveness it seems logical to use them. So I used the papal coronation Papal Tiara for the box on popes, the British coronation crown for the British one, the Scottish crown for the Scottish box, the White House for the US president's one, etc. (Using standards on their own is problematical, as royal standards change when royal houses change, but the crown remains a constant.) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Colour

message: Content is relatively easy, IMHO. We need to answer the questions: what is the formal diplomatic style of a head of state? What is the spoken form? Is there an alternative version used? Individual states may have more options, but rarely a large number. The basic format should be simple, straight-forward and NPOV. Lulu made the fair point point about whether stating these styles might in some way be seen as suggesting that people must use them. To avoid this I deliberately described them in the caption simply as the styles of a head of state, not the styles used. Nothing in their layout suggests "if you meet Pope Benedict XVI in your local pub, or Queen Elizabeth in your local chipper, you must use one of these", merely that these are used formally by diplomats (hence the deliberate use of diplomatic. Whether you use them or not is entirely your business. 
Two final issues — I used monarchical styles rather than just styles for monarchs because unlike presidents monarchs will have had past styles when a prince/ess, etc. That is just a suggestion. 
Secondly, I think bolding the descriptive text on the left helps distinguish it from the unique information in a particular infobox about a particular office holder. I also italicised it. That was a matter of personal preference. I like using italics to mark different information. User:Neutrality is not a fan of the italicisation. That too is something we should discuss. (I do think it is a good idea, however, to keep the italics from the top headline.) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Content

message: Location is tricky. On balance I think one standard location on all pages where possible is best. I would suggest that the style infobox go directly below the first picture of the subject of the article. (BTW I am not skilled at designing these things. There are other Wikipedians who could tweak any final layout.) 
For example
----
Mockup of George III article
----
George III (George William Frederick) (4 June 1738 – 29 January 1820)
was King of Great Britain, and King of Ireland from 25 October 1760 until 1 January 1801, and thereafter King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until his death. He was concurrently Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, and thus Elector (and later King) of Hanover.  The Electorate became the Kingdom of Hanover on 12 October 1814. George was the third British monarch of the House of Hanover, but the first to be born in Britain and use English as his first language.
During George III's reign, Britain lost many of its colonies in North America, which became the United States. Also during his reign, the realms of Great Britain and Ireland united to form the United Kingdom. 
Later in his reign George III was said to have gone mad. It is thought now that he suffered from mental and nervous disorders as a consequence of the blood disease porphyria, which has struck several British monarchs.  Recently, owing to studies showing high levels of the poison arsenic in King George's hair, arsenic is also thought to be a possible cause of King George's insanity and health problems.  After a final relapse in 1811, George's eldest son, The Prince George, Prince of Wales governed as Prince Regent. Upon George's death, the Prince of Wales succeeded his father to become George IV.
(rest of text left out).
----
Rest of discussion
----
There probably is a standard size for the with of images on Wikipedia, or at least an average width. Perhaps the infobox should be the same width as that average. I do stress, I am a complete amateur in designing these things. People more skilled than I may well be able to tweak the boxes to fit better. 
Alternatively the boxes could be made as a left inbox rather than right. I do think, given the strength of feeling among pro-styles people about the usage of styles, and that this proposal would involve the deletion of styles from the start of articles, that the boxes should be high up the article. Putting them lower down my seem like a victory for the anti-styles side and this whole proposal is drafted in a way that should produce a win-win for both sides, a compromise that both sides could live with.  
There is an issue about the size of royal house templates. These templates are superb (really really superb) but in themselves cause problems in short articles. Adding in an infobox on the right might make this worse, but the central issue is what to do about long royal house templates in short articles, and whether maybe a different shaped template should be available in those cases. But that is a different issue.
Overall, and this is quite important, I do think we should agree on a policy about locating these templates. Because of the touchiness over the issue of styles, a locate them where you want to could well produce edit wars over the degree of prominence people want them to have, wth user X putting them at the top, user Y putting them down the text, and each side reverting ad nausaum. A clear policy that everyone would follow would limit that danger. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Location

message: I'm not wild about these, but I see that they have a lot of support.
For U.S. pages, I'd like to suggest either not using them at all, making them and opt-in choice, or making them subdued and at the bottom of the page. My reasoning is that the style goes with the office and not with the person. I think the current format draws disproportiante attention.
Also, I'm not sure "excellency" goes with U.S. presidents. Maurreen (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like them either. They seem to give someone's style undue importance. As it is I think it's bad when articles have a detailed discussion on someone's style in the introduction. It's worth mentioning style, but this should be done without drawing undue attention to it. Using their current style right up front when we give someone's name and, if it's changed greatly over the year's having a small section on it at the very end of the article seems sufficient enough. Surely an article should concentrate on what someone's actually done rather than concentrate on style! jguk 15:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: This whole "styles box" seems to be giving them way too much prominence in my view, jguk 17:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lonely dissent, and some suggestions

message: hey guys, 
The discussion seems to have dried up but a overwhelming majority has supported their introduction. As there was such a consensus, and no subsequent discussion (though I repeatedly did try to generate discussions) I think it makes sense to make these live. OK? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the basis of all the responses I received (all of whom said that the boxes should be used) I've added in the papal box for popes from the early 18th century to John Paul II. (Benedict XVI is currently locked.) Boxes have also been added in British royal pages from Victoria to Elizabeth II. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  going live 

message: I've created another infobox for royal consorts:
I think it could be used in articles such as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. Also, shouldn't Template:Infobox UKkingstyles be moved? See its talk page for my reasoning. --Matjlav(talk) 22:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consort Infobox