Template talk:Infobox pharaoh

message: Why are the various names of the Ancient Egyptian royal titulary out of canonical order? Ok, I can understand having the praenomen and nomen (in that order!) at the beginning, but the rest really ought to be in the Horus name, Neby name, Golden Horus name order IMO. —Flembles 14:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titulary? 

message: This template probably shouldn't be in the Pharoah Infobox. The Pharoahs should have their Persondata templates placed directly before the categories (and defaultsort), not at the beginning of the article. No other infobox contains the Persondata template. Can it be removed from this infobox please? Thanks. --Rajah 22:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persondata template doesn't belong in this infobox

message: The size of this template has gotten out of control on many pages; it is both very long and very wide in many cases. I've developed a much more compact version of this template. The titulary is now hidden, accessible by hitting [show]. The predecessor and successor are now listed under the photograph; this allows them to be on one line each. The dynasty will follow the reignal years, saving additional space. The cartouches will render better now, particularly the tip and tail, although I haven't found a solution to the topward alignment problem that has always been there. I think the solution would be something like the  syntax, only for the vertical dimension, but I'm not sure what the syntax is. The cartouches will also be on their own line, allowing the template to be narrower. The picture will no longer have a frame; this allows the image to fill the space more fully. The default image size will be 250 pixels wide, but the user can manually input a different size where appropriate. I decided to omit the alternate names parameter because we probably shouldn't be reinforcing archaic spellings of names, but it could be added back at any time if there's an uproar over it. Each usage of the new template will probably need to be fixed because a few of the parameter names have been changed, but I am willing to do the work and I don't think the changes are that major. The nomen/pronomen parameters are slightly different, to make the cartouches work correctly, and the "issue" parameter is now called "children", but for now I left the old syntax as an option so at least that parameter will be backwards compatible. Although the transition to the new version of the template may take some time, having the size of this thing under control is long overdue. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 05:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic, the pages now look great. This is such an improvement on what was there before. Markh (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, let me know if any issues crop up. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, I have just been editting the Khasekhemwy and Seth-Peribsen articles and notices that the serekhs don't correctly show the different (i.e Seth creatures) for each of these kings. I'm not sure whether it ever did, but I might have play and see whether it can be fixed. Markh (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  Different issue: I notice that everything that appears in an infobox below the area of an image + caption seems to be right-justified (i.e. flush to the right-hand margin). Does anyone else think that looks odd? Captmondo (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It didn't use to be that way when I finished the revamp. Will investigate. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I fixed some of the column span values and that seems to correct the problem. Not sure how it happened but it should be OK now. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template fixes 

message: There is in the moment a problem with the Horus name. It needs to be placed in a rectangular box. In the old template that was done, not in the new one. bw -- Udimu (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Nephiliskos (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horus name 

message: The paramater  mentioned in the Doc does not work. It belongs to . The unmentioned parameter  does work.
Please fix.--Auric  talk 13:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Documentation fixed. As far as I can tell using the WikiBlame history search,  has never been in the template. I could be missing something. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing parameters 

message: This template should have a field for inputting the birth and death places for pharaohs. Though it is true that most birthplaces of kings are not known, some do have areas from which they originated (eg Horemheb), something usually put in an infobox for other articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.176.168.21 (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth and death places 

message: Dear , , , , , , , , as active users editing Ancient Egypt articles, I need your opinion on a simple question. There is a potential problem in the design of the pharaoh infobox as most people seem to miss the [show] button next to "Royal titulary". There are three possibilities regarding this issue:1) put [show] on by default;2) make the [show] button more conspicuous (write [click to show], use bold font, a special color, or a combination of those);3) do nothing, there is no problem.Could you please give your opinion on the matter?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Iry-Hor, thank you for contacting me, but in fact I don't edit Egyptian articles unless they touch on Biblical matters (e.g. the exodus). I really don't have the knowledge to help, sorry. All the best. :) PiCo (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps a note on the specific info-box talk page? Template talk:Infobox pharaoh. Tim riley talk  16:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done, I have transposed the entire discussion there.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Hey Iry-Hor, what's up? I never had this issue. Anyway, I've just checked the template page, ybut I lack the required knowledge to show it on by default, I'm sorry. Khruner (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey! It's good to be back ! So about the show button, the problem is not technical, it works. The issue is with the design of the infobox: casual wikipedia readers and editors do not notice the button at all! See the HERE for an example of a well-meaning editor who put Menkaure's name in hieroglyph at the beginning of the article, presumably because he/she had not seen it in the infobox (the edit survived three months, which shows that he wasn't the only one believeing this info what nowhere else in the article). I have polled a few people and can confirm that c. 3/4 of them have not noticed the button. Iry-Hor (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello , thanks for bringing this up! (I have little experience in infobox construction/design, so I apologize in advance for not being of more help.) If there is a clear problem with visibility (which there seems to be), I would not oppose a modification. Is there any way to test what kind of modification to the button would be most effective (besides having the text shown by default)? Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Iry-Hor I do not find the box perfect, but I think the layout is okaish. On the German wiki there is no button, all names of the pharaohs are all fully visible, but I find the boxes there often too big, especially for lesser known kings, the boxes are often unproportional large in comparison to the short texts. -- Udimu (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about making the titualry visible by default, but I checked on a couple of pharaohs' articles and clicked "show" to see how the box looks when the titulary is open. It's very long and pushes the images beneath it a long way down, so I don't think it's a good idea. I'd support making the "show" button larger, as it is pretty small. A. Parrot (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I propose to replace the [show] by [click to show] to make it more conspicuous. In addition we could write it in bold if "[click to show]" isn't visible enough.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear all, so people at the Village pump (technical) have come up with the following technically possible alternatives: *i) put the show button on the left of "Royal Titulary"; *ii) make it larger; *iii) write another section header below "Royal Titulary" so as to make apparent that "Royal Titulary" is not the section header for what is below. From what I understand, these are essentially the only possible modifications, as otherwise modifying the text of the show button requires one to dwelve into the underlying java code.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It strikes me, as a non-expert (very non-expert) that a bigger button would be a sensible first resort. Tim riley talk  09:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of the pump contributor pointed out that obviously in English you read from left to right and so placing the button on the left of "Royal titulary" would ensure many more people read it. I am contemplating it, namely put it on the left, make it a bit bigger and perhaps if I can manage java replace by [show hieroglyphs].Iry-Hor (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show button

message: , , , , , , , , following on from the discussion above (which was quite a long time ago now, but its been bothering me for a while). I think by default wikipedia should be displaying some of the real names for each pharaoh, but even with the show button being made more visible it is not at all obvious that this information is already available. I've seen examples of pages for pharoahs where users have added in this information a second time because they weren't aware of it being in the infobox. I've made a change to the sandbox template so that prenomen, nomen and horus names are visible by default (if they exist). Do you have any thoughts? Woscafrench (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: About the display of the hierosː I am not fully sure. 99 percent of readers cant read hieroglyphs, for them this is just a nice/fancy decoration of the article, but will not add anything to their knowledge. Those who can read them are happy to open the box (saying thisː i am not a big fan of boxes in general, especially in short article, they take too much space without much information). --Udimu (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly I'm satisfied with the status quo. I'm confident that the few readers truly interested in the hieroglyphs will eventually find the "show" button. If someone inadvertently duplicates the titulary, let's simply revert & explain. Khruner (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not usually an editor of these articles, but I was just fixing a bug on a pharaoh infobox and couldn't find where the names were displayed. It was only after looking here that I noticed the "show" link. I agree they are probably too much to be shown by default, but it would be great to make the link more obvious if possible. the wub "?!" 23:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Making heiroglyphic names more visible

message: I suggest adding the "child" parameter to the template.Sardar (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Embedding suggestion

message: Hey, I am a Japanese Wikipedian of Egyptology.
I have been wondering why the order of the five-fold titulary is not accurate in Enwp?
I had this question when I decided to join this editing volunteer over 1 year ago, but I left this problem out when I improved this Template in Jawp.
Japanese Template was affected by the English version, when the man who was not familiar in Egyptology imported this Template in Jawp.  I worry that some people get the order wrong, of course the fact order is; Horus, Nebty, Golden, Throne, Birth.
I want to know the reason. Thank you.--Sethemhat (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I have no idea why they aren't in canonical order. A discussion from 2006 poses the same question. My guess is that the throne and birth names are first because they are the most recognisable or the most commonly used names of the royal titulary? Most people using wiki probably can't read hieroglyphs anyway so I'm not sure it affects them which name is first. For me, it would be nice to have the titulary in the proper order :) Merytat3n (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox was originally created with the reverse order (B->T->GH->N->H). I guess it made sense to have birth name at the top since most pharaohnic articles take it as their title. Otherwise, I don't know why the current order was implemented. No qualms with implementing the standard order. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  and Thank you for your comments. Over three weeks have passed and I had no objections to this issue. Thus, I've changed the order of the title. If someone has comments on my changes, please write yours below mine.--Sethemhat (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Order?

message: I am using mobile phone. On desktop view everything is fine. But on mobile view, when I touch the "show" link to expand the Royal titulary (present in the infobox) nothing happens (just the yellow ribbon cuts in two). Moreover, when I look at the article logged-out, the show link is missing (again it cuts in two). For example, look at Akhenaten. Aminabzz (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made this display. It doesn't display perfectly. Someone else should probably work on it until it displays the way it should. Izno (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with Royal titulary in mobile view